Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 3rd March.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Monday next, at Seven o'clock.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

TORBAY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Lower Income Groups

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that recent official United States statistics show a decline in the real standard of living of lower income groups; how far recent statistics in the United Kingdom show a similar trend; and what is the position in this country in both incomes and ownership of wealth, both relatively and actually, in each case.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): I am aware of the United States figure that my hon. Friend has in mind, but I can assure him that comparable United Kingdom statistics do not show the same trend. I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind in the last part of his Question.

Mr. Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend accept that I am aware that the social policies of the Government have in some


degree succeeded in ameliorating the tendency of capitalism to extend the differences between the lower and the higher income groups; nevertheless, there is a disquieting tendency for this to happen? Will my hon. Friend have another look at the Question? If he reads it carefully he will see quite clearly what answers I want to the second part of it.

Mr. Rodgers: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that the rich are not getting richer and the poor are not getting poorer. I will study his Question again to see if I can be more helpful.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Should not the House be more concerned about the relative decline in the living standards of all income groups in the population since this Government took office? Is not it evident that, unless a Tory Government comes back soon, the country will rank as an under-developed country according to the income per head of the population?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman is talking pretty average nonsense. The standard of living of the British people as a whole has risen very considerably over the last five years.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes in the selective employment tax as a result of the report of Professor Reddaway.

Mr. Milne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the date for the publication of the Reddaway Report on selective employment tax; and what section of the service and distributive trades the report will cover.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he now proposes to issue a statement about the effect of selective employment tax in Scotland arising from Professor Reddaway's report.

Mr. William Rodgers: Professor Reddaway's first report will be published in the first week of March. It covers the effects of S.E.T. on the wholesale and retail distributive trades. Any major changes in the operation of the tax would be a matter for the Budget.

Mr. Sheldon: I welcome that news, but has my hon. Friend yet had a chance of perusing the report? Secondly, will the full details of the report, together with the views of the Treasury, be available before the Budget, or before a possible debate on this important matter?

Mr. Rodgers: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". In reply to the second part of the question, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the Budget.

Mr. Milne: I thank my hon. Friend for giving the date of the appearance of the report, but is not he aware that action was taken in the last Budget in relation to selective employment tax without there being a report? Cannot we look at the Reddaway Report against the background of the purposes for which it was intended, and do something before the Budget without necessarily involving a change in the tax?

Mr. Rodgers: I am at one with my hon. Friend on the first part of the question. We should look at the Reddaway Report and weigh all that it has to say, but in the circumstances I do not think I can add further to the prospect of steps being taken.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Could the Minister of State say whether it is the Chancellor's present intention to make a statement to the House at the time of publication?

Mr. Rodgers: No, it is not his present intention.

Import Deposits

Mr. Blaker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reduce the rate of import deposits to 20 per cent.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): No, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: Why not?

Mr. Jenkins: Because I believe the scheme is still serving a useful purpose. While I believed it right to reduce the rate of deposit to 40 per cent., one should proceed gradually in getting rid of schemes which serve a useful purpose.

Economic Growth

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the levels of economic growth attainable for each £100 million by which


the current account surplus on balance of payments is reduced; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The figure would vary according to the level of surplus which formed the starting point, and according to the length of time taken into consideration. Accepting a decline in the surplus below an appropriate target level could raise the rate of economic growth in the short run only to lower it in the long run, because of the difficulties into which it would lead the national economy.

Mr. Barnett: Does my right hon. Friend still accept that our productive potential is only 2·9 per cent. and that in the next five years he could attain only between 3 and 3½ per cent.? Would he not accept that we could achieve a higher rate of economic growth if he reduced his target of a £550 million surplus which, in any case, is not needed in the present state of our economy when our creditors do not want repayment immediately?

Mr. Jenkins: I think our creditors are quite glad to have repayment. As to the other point my hon. Friend mentioned, the main reason that the rate of our economic growth has been unsatisfactory, taking one year with another for quite a long time past, is that there have been continual interruptions, particularly after any strong period of growth, because of balance of payments difficulties. My object is to get a steady rate of growth in the future.

Welsh Budget (Defence Expenditure)

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to calculate the amount of defence expenditure attributable to Wales in the mock Welsh Budget which is being prepared.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): Defence expenditure is undertaken for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole. As in the recent preparation of a Scottish budget, the share of Wales in that benefit can only be apportioned on an arbitrary basis—such as population.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the fairest and most reasonable way of making this calculation would be to

anticipate what a Welsh Government would spend on defence, which would be nearer Finland's or Ireland's proportion of gross national product; that the most unreasonable way is to calculate on a per capita basis the Welsh share of the present inflated expenditure, and that the middle way is to ensure that we have attributed to us our present share of expenditure on defence in Wales?

Mr. Diamond: Expenditure has no relationship to the benefits derived from defence. As to whether I would be prepared to imagine a Welsh Government, that is more than even a Treasury Minister should be called upon to do.

Motor Taxation

Mr. Ashton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the motoring associations regarding motor taxation.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have received representations asking for a reduction in the level of fuel tax, vehicle excise duty and purchase tax on cars, motor cycles and mopeds.

Mr. Ashton: Would my right hon. Friend, when studying these representations, take note that there is an ex-Tory Cabinet Minister of Transport on the executive of the A.A., that the only M.P. on the board is a Tory, that there are other executive members with petrol and insurance connections, and that the executive is not democratically elected but selected?

Mr. Jenkins: I take due note of what my hon. Friend says, which is of interest, although I take even more note of matters of fiscal judgment in weighing representations from any source.

Sir H. Harrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman particularly keep in mind the organisations that produce drivers to take their tests, such as the motor school associations which he has classified as service bodies rather than producers? Since they produce good drivers, would he not consider them in that respect in his next Budget?

Mr. Jenkins: That supplementary question should have been related to the Question answered by my hon. Friend about the Reddaway Report rather than to this question.

Decimal Currency

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to introduce a new banknote, to the value of 250 new pence, when decimal currency becomes operative in 1971.

Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir; I have seen no evidence that a note of this denomination is necessary, or would be convenient.

Mr. Watkins: Nevertheless, is my hon. Friend aware that, with the growing circulation and popularity of the £5 note, it is now quite frequently tendered for quite small payments, and that there is a genuine need for some intermediate denomination of note, as suggested in my Question?

Mr. Rodgers: Nobody would wish to be dogmatic for all time on this matter. The important issue is that of convenience in the light of experience. I certainly would not object to keeping an open mind.

Personal Incomes

Mr. Costain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of

REQUIRED EARNINGS IN JANUARY, 1970 (ANNUAL RATE)


Annual Earnings 1964
Single persons
Married couple 1 child under 11
Married couple 2 children under 11
Married couple 3 children under 11


£
£
£
£
£


500
650
625
604
585


1,500
1,956
1,981
1,998
2,017


3,000
3,884
3,909
3,927
3,949


4,000
5,296
5,284
5,302
5,324

Married Women (Income Tax)

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning an alternative to the aggregation of the earnings of married women with those of their husbands for taxation purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to further reductions of income tax payable by married women who do paid work.

Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend has received various representations on

how much a single man, and a married man with one, two or three children under 11 years of age, respectively, need earn in January, 1970, to offset the increase in the cost of living compared with men in similar circumstances earning, respectively, £500, £1,500, £3,000 and £4,000 a year in 1964, taking into account changes in the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling, income tax, surtax and family allowances.

Mr. William Rodgers: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister realise how convenient that Answer is? Does he appreciate that the last time I asked a similar Question I was told that it meant £700 a year more on a salary of £3,000 to maintain the same spending power? Does he not appreciate that it is the high rate of taxation brought about by this Government which is causing pressure on the prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, and I think that before drawing further conclusions he should study the figures.

Following are the figures:

this matter, but I cannot anticipate his Budget statement.

Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when a professional man and woman both go out to work they are penalised financially for having entered into the married state? Instead of there being a tax on virtue, people should be taxed as individuals in their own right. Furthermore, is he aware that the Medical Women's Federation claims that because of this tax burden 1,500 married women doctors are not practising?

Mr. Diamond: On the first part of the question, I am sure my hon. Friend is


aware that up to a salary in excess of £5,000 a married couple both working are better off than they would be if single. As to the question of aggregation, the House is aware that this matter was studied in detail by the Royal Commission, which concluded that aggregation should be maintained.

Mr. Cronin: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this tax law is based on the archaic assumption that a woman is some sort of chattel of her husband, and that it is therefore quite inconsistent with the ideals of a modern society which wants to make the maximum use of the scientific knowledge of all its members, irrespective of sex?

Mr. Diamond: I do not want to be drawn into the question of who is whose chattel. I would only reply to my hon. Friend that the law is based on the commonsense assumption that married people live together, share together and work together.

Mr. Iain Macleod: But does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation is that up to a joint income of £5,085 it pays to be married and that, beyond that sum, it pays to get divorced? On what conceivable principle can he justify that situation?

Mr. Diamond: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman by saying that the system is based on aggregation. That matter of aggregation was considered in depth by the Royal Commission and approved. It made a suggestion about the ceiling for an addition to the earned income relief, and when the right hon. Gentleman's own Government considered the position in 1957 they made an alteration to the ceiling, but left unaltered for that year, and the seven following years, the principle of aggregation.

Motor Cars (Hire Purchase and Purchase Tax)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will offset the effect of the steel price rise in the already depressed home market for cars by relaxing hire-purchase conditions on cars and reducing the purchase tax; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the urgency of this matter to the industry, would my right hon. Friend consider or explore the possibility of some degree of relaxation tied to the idea of exporting a laid-down proportion of total output, with a strict warning to the industry that, if the proportion exported fell below that figure, hire-purchase conditions would be toughened?

Mr. Jenkins: This matter was fully debated and explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and my hon. Friend the Minister of State last week—more fully explained and debated than I would attempt to do today. As for the longer term matters, I consider all these propositions. But the proposition that one should fix an export target and, if not attained, one should then shrink the whole market, is a matter which has certain difficulties as well as certain attractions.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the recent price increase in steel, our motor manufacturers still have a 5 per cent. advantage over their European competitors and that, if they cannot cope with competition with that type of advantage, they should look at their own internal organisations with a view to making cost reductions?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that the premise of my hon. Friend about relative steel prices is a very valid one.

Interest Rates

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he now has for reducing interest rates.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The current level of interest rates is necessary for both external and internal reasons. While I do not propose to keep our rates at a high level any longer than the situation requires I can make no prediction as to when it may prove possible to reduce them.

Mr. Fraser: Following the discussions which my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister had with the American Treasury, is there no hope of an agreement on the de-escalation of interest rates in both American and Europe? As a good Socialist, would not my right hon. Friend


agree that high interest is a tribute that the poor pay to the rich?

Mr. Jenkins: These matters are a little more complex than that, though I admire my hon. Friend's choice of phraseology. We have been in close contact with the American Government and with other Governments about this matter, and I think that we would all welcome an international decline in interest rates, though I am not sure that a direct attempt at an agreement would be the right approach.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the squeeze is even more debilitating than high interest rates but that to have both the squeeze and high interest rates is a killer as regards business growth? Cannot he deal with the squeeze, if not with high interest rates?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the matter. High interest rates and the squeeze go together.

Mr. Higgins: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's initial reply that he is deliberately keeping interest rates high for internal reasons, quite apart from the international level?

Mr. Jenkins: No. I have pursued, I think with successful results on the external balance, a policy of monetary stringency. It would not be possible to pursue such a policy with artificially low interest rates.

Scottish Estate Duty Office (Staff)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the shortage of Inland Revenue staff in the Scottish Estate Duty Office.

Mr. Diamond: The Scottish Estate Duty Office's requirements have recently been under review and proposed arrangements for the provision of additional staff to fill the current shortage have recently been put to the staff associations concerned. I have written to my hon. Friend with further details.

Mr. Dalyell: Following that interesting and full letter, what is being done by the Inland Revenue to try to hold highly qualified staff for whom there is a powerful market demand?

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend is on to the kernel of the matter. The situation is that the Inland Revenue trains its new

applicants and insists on their acquiring a legal degree. As soon as they are trained and qualified, private industry attracts them. This is a problem which is with us, and there is no obvious solution.

Decimal Currency

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the effect on the cost of living of the introduction of decimal currency in 1971; and if he will make a statement

Mr. William Rodgers: Decimalisation, as has repeatedly been made clear, should not of itself lead to any overall increase in price levels.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not my hon. Friend think that commercial retail and distributive interests will round off to the nearest convenient decimal point and, as goods are never rounded down but up, will not there be an increase in prices to consumers?

Mr. Rodgers: I hope that my hon. Friend's fears will prove to have been ill-founded. As the House will know, the Decimal Currency Board has made some clear recommendations by which the new half-penny conversion table will enable prices sometimes to be rounded down, though some may be rounded up.

Sir John Rodgers: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that a decimal system in which two pennies are worth one new penny and three pennies are worth e new penny is bound to lead to an increase in retail prices?

Mr. Rodgers: No. There is no evidence to that effect.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government intends to take arising from recent proposals for rounding up prices to prevent price increases arising from the change of decimal currency early next year.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have nothing to add to what I said to my hon. Friend in answer to a similar Question on 29th January.—[Vol. 794, c. 387–8.]

Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside any Tory mischief-making on this matter, is it not essential for the Government to take strong action to fight proposals such


as that of the London Underground to have a shilling minimum fare? Are the Government willing to reconsider seriously keeping the sixpence?

Mr. Rodgers: We have made it clear that it would be totally inconsistent with Government policy and with the views of both sides of the House on prices that advantage should be taken of decimalisation in any way. As for my hon. Friend's second point, we have made clear in the past our view about the likely future of the sixpence.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answers to this Question and Question No. 16 reveal an extraordinarily bland optimism? Is not he, even now, prepared to say that the future of the sixpence is being reconsidered, and will not he take into account the considerable amount of evidence being presented to him on the matter?

Mr. Rodgers: We do not approach this matter in a bland or unreasonable way. We have to be clear that the suggestion of hysteria should not arise and that anxieties should not be unreasonably provoked. I think that the evidence will show when the times comes that increases due to decimalisation will be of a minor kind.

Earned and Unearned Income (Taxation)

Mr. Grant: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the revenue of abolishing the distinction for tax purposes between earned and unearned income.

Mr. William Rodgers: About £200 million for a full year.

Mr. Grant: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the term "unearned income" is a wholly emotive one and that the artificial distinction for tax purposes is working very much against the increased savings and investment which the Chancellor so badly wants?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that it is an emotive term. It is a real one. It describes effectively the differences between the forms of income. I do not think that it has the consequences which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Simon Mahon: When my right hon Friend considers the pressures which

are brought to bear upon him, will he also consider the aged, the widows and the sick, many of whom have never had a penny of unearned income in their lives?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that that, amongst many other considerations, will be in my right hon. Friend's mind.

Stock Building

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why stock accumulate fell from plus £117 million at 1963 prices in the first quarter of 1969 to minus £19 million in the third quarter; and what is his estimate for stock accumulate for 1969.

Mr. William Rodgers: Any explanation of movements in stockbuilding must be to some extent speculative. The pause in the growth of demand in early 1969 may have led to some involuntary stockbuilding; later in the year there may have been an adjustment reinforced by credit stringency and expectations of price-falls. Figures for 1969 are not yet available.

Mr. Ridsdale: How much of the current surplus in the balance of payments is due to destocking in industry, and how much is due to the fact that aggregated investment in manufacturing industry is £1,000 million below the aggregate target aimed at in the National Plan?

Mr. Rodgers: I would not dispute that the reduced rate of stockbuilding in the second and third quarters of 1969 has, through its effect on imports, contributed to the rapidity in the improvement of the trade balance. Other factors, such as the continued expansion of exports, have been important, too.

Mr. Barnett: Has my hon. Friend seen the recent report of the Liverpool Business School, which seems to indicate that it is possible that one reason for our economic difficulties is the high proportion of stock carried in this country in relation to the national income? Will he consider inquiring into the whole question of stocks carried by companies in this country?

Mr. Rodgers: I have seen the report, and certainly we will note its contents.

Mr. Alison: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the stock-output ratio


is now at its lowest level since 1960? What effect upon the external balance does he anticipate from a return to a more normal level?

Mr. Rodgers: A return to a more normal level will not affect the external balance.

1d. Slot Machines (Tax)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax he estimates will be collected from the £15 tax imposed in his last budget on 1d. slot machines; and how much of this tax will come from the seaside resorts.

Mr. William Rodgers: The duty yield from holiday season licences is expected to be under £1 million a year. Almost all of this will come from seaside resorts.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will not the hon. Gentleman look at this? Does not he realise that many small seaside businesses face ruin as a result of this tax?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates the position, but representations were made yesterday to my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary.

Banks (Lending Policy)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now intends to issue a new directive to the banks on their lending policy.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir. I see no need for fresh requests or guidance at the present time.

Mr. Baker: Why cannot the credit squeeze be eased now? Is there not ample evidence that the economy needs reflating? Why has the Chancellor handed over the job of reflating the economy to Mr. Vic Feather?

Mr. Jenkins: I have handed over nothing to Mr. Vic Feather. I take notice of what he says on this and on other matters. But the responsibility for managing the economy is mine, and I do not think that a policy of indiscriminate reflation would be right at this time.

Mr. Dickens: As 125,000 building workers are currently unemployed, is there not a very strong case for giving the con-

struction industry a higher priority for lending from the banks?

Mr. Jenkins: It would be very difficult to do this without giving it to a great number of other industries—for instance, agriculture. Exports are already given priority. Once one has made a great number of holes in any piece of cloth there is not much of the cloth left.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Chancellor look again at what he has just said, bearing in mind how agriculture could help our balance of payments in the immediate years ahead, and give it the priority that it needs; also the building industry which his hon. Friend has just mentioned?

Mr. Jenkins: I am sure that if one went round and took a list of individual items, one could make a very good case, considered on their own, for each of them being relaxed. I am also clear that if one put them all together one would destroy the policies which have achieved success in our balance of payments.

Mr. Sheldon: Since the banks have been lending money in excess of my right hon. Friend's directive, may I ask whether he will formalise the present situation, and will he be doing anything about any other financial institutions over which he has little control?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that "directive" is the correct word, because no directive has been issued or, indeed, would be appropriate in the circumstances. The banks are above their 3½ per cent. ceiling. But in considering whether this is appropriate at present, regard must be had to all the circumstances, including, for instance, the continuance of the import deposits scheme.

Tax Repayments

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue a direction to the Inland Revenue to give priority over other work to the repayment of tax paid by but not due from individual citizens.

Mr. William Rodgers: My right hon. Friend already attaches the greatest importance to dealing promptly with claims for repayment of tax and regrets any delays due to the very heavy burden of work carried by Inland Revenue staff.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not indefensible for the Inland Revenue to retain money which is lawfully the taxpayers' on the ground that the Chancellor is overworking it?

Mr. Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman is being less than fair. There is a real problem here over the burden of work, and everything possible is being done to help members of the public affected.

Estate Duty

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates would be the loss of revenue from estate duty of exempting from duty all property and assets passing on death from a man to his widow.

Mr. William Rodgers: The loss would depend upon the extent to which wills were altered as a result of such a change and could be of the order of £100 million in a full year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a trifle illogical and unfair to treat a married couple during life as one person for tax purposes and to separate them to their detriment immediately on death? Would not the figure, which the hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to give, be much reduced if account were taken of the fact that duty under this proposal would fall to be paid in full on the death of the widow?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that it is unfair. There are good reasons for the present principle, which is of long standing. But I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would it not be just and would not the loss be minimised if the Chancellor charged a reduced rate of duty to widows who inherit small estates, many of whom are in dire need?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that my hon. and learned Friend is on a slightly different point, but I will reflect upon what he has said.

Northern Ireland Government Securities (Capital Gains Tax)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to exempt Northern

Ireland Government securities from capital gains tax in the same way as the United Kingdom Government stocks.

Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir.

Mr. Mills: Is it not totally illogical that Northern Ireland securities should be subject to capital gains tax while United Kingdom Government securities are exempt? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this adds an additional burden on the cost of raising capital for the Northern Ireland Government?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a purpose, which he will perhaps realise on reflection. British Government securities were exempt from capital gains tax for purposes of economic management which do not apply in the same way in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland (Credit Squeeze)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take measures to relax the credit squeeze in Northern Ireland in view of the present employment situation.

Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Northern Ireland banks are not expected to regard themselves as bound by a ceiling on the amount of their lending; but they have been asked to observe official guidance on the direction of lending, and are well aware that that guidance includes a request to have regard to the Government's policies on regional development.

Mr. Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that firms in Northern Ireland have suffered severely in the economic climate resulting from the disturbances of last year? Will he consider sympathetically some method of making additional capital readily available through the banks to give them a shot in the arm over this difficult period?

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of the problem. It is very real. But it is more likely to be remedied by the growth of confidence through stable conditions in Northern Ireland.

Hospital, Rhodesia (Drugs)

Mr. Wall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the five-week delay on drugs consigned to Harari


Central Hospital, Salisbury, Rhodesia, was due to a hold-up in the British Customs.

Mr. William Rodgers: Not at all.

Mr. Wall: . Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these drugs could have been sent to Rhodesia within 24 hours, and that the five weeks delay contributed to the death of three African children? Can he reassure the House that this had nothing to do with British policy on sanctions?

Mr. Rodgers: I can give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks irrespective of whether the facts are precisely as he describes them. The delay in the arrival of the drugs was in no way due to action by the Customs or any other Government Department.

Capital gains tax

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current estimated yield of the long and short-term capital gains taxes; and what estimate he has made of the effect on these figures of raising the exemption limit from £50 to £250, £500 and £1,000, respectively.

Mr. Diamond: The Budget estimates included £136 million for capital gains tax and £6 million for tax on short-term gains. If the higher exemption limits cited had applied retrospectively to gains realised in 1968–69 the full year cost would have been £10 million, £20 million and £40 million respectively.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a singularly unjust tax and that in the circumstances of current inflation it becomes nothing more or less than a capital levy? Will he, therefore, bear in mind the desirability of adopting some of the reforms suggested in the Question?

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir. I take the view that our social system had a glaring gap in it before we had capital gains tax. However, I will give thought to what the hon. Gentleman said in the second part of his supplementary question.

National Savings

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total National Savings for the last available

Mr. William Rodgers: Total National Savings at the end of 1969 was approximately £8,443 million. This represents a decrease in 1969 of approximately £100 million compared with an increase of £78·8 million in 1968.

Mr. Biffen: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us over what previous period we have to look to find such a dramatic turn-round in the fortunes of National Savings? What does he think are the factors to which we should attribute the apparent unwillingness of the British public to lend its money to the British Government?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question without notice. But he will know that many factors affect the growth of National Savings. Nor are National Savings the only way that individuals save. In particular, sales of gilt-edged securities to the private sector and the flows of funds into building societies have been encouraging.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Grant: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to reduce the level of purchase tax on incontinence clothing required for medical purposes.

Mr. Diamond: Specialised appliances for wear by sufferers from this condition are already tax-free.

Mr. Grant: Is the Chief Secretary aware that a number of essential surgical items, such as the headwear used by nurses and doctors, are subject to this tax, and will he consider relieving them?

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me saying, if my physiology is correct, that this is rather a different question.

Manufacturing Industry (Output)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the percentage increase in output per person employed in manufacturing industry in 1969; and


what change such estimate represents on the out-turn in 1968.

Mr. Diamond: Estimates for 1969 as a whole are not yet available.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not already evident, however, that the rate of increased productivity has slumped? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has happened to the productivity miracle about which the Prime Minister used to brag? Is this another example of the way that the Prime Minister no sooner discovers a miracle than it disappears?

Mr. Diamond: I wish that the Prime Minister had the capacity to make certain things and certain persons disappear. The assumption in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not correct, and the rest, therefore, does not follow.

Exchange Rates

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further progress has been made to date concerning his proposal for wider parity bands and other proposals for more flexible exchange rates.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Various proposals for a more flexible exchange rate system are at present undergoing thorough study in the I.M.F. Executive Board.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not rather disappointing that more use has not apparently been made of the present lull between currency storms to render the system more flexible? In particular, what progress, if any, has been made with, I think, the German proposal for abolishing the upper limits of the parity band?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not aware of any formal German proposal of that sort. The study is going on certainly at least as fast as other countries wish it to. All matters of international monetary cooperation must be matters of co-operation: it would be impossible to make the studies, even if they were likely to lead to anything valuable, more quickly.

Mr. Barnett: Would my right hon. Friend at least deny reports that he is apparently not prepared to consider—that he has, indeed, closed his mind to this question—possibly bringing in crawling pegs or sliding rates? Would he

also confirm that he would allow at least the present amount allowed of a 1 per cent. move up or down, which has not been used in recent years?

Mr. Jenkins: The question of crawling pegs can no doubt be studied, but I detect no enthusiasm for this proposal on the part of any major country at present. In Washington, I found myself somewhat more adventurous than almost any other Finance Minister on this and related subjects. As for the upper limit of the parity, my hon. Friend may be becoming worried that the £ will be pressing against the ceiling soon. He is a little premature, but we will consider that problem when it becomes necessary.

Betterment Levy

Mr. Costain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much betterment levy was charged for the year to 5th April, 1969; and how much of that figure he estimates will be offset by reductions in income tax, surtax, corporation tax and capital gains tax.

Mr. William Rodgers: £15 million was charged in the financial year 1968–69. I regret that the information on which to base an estimate of the reductions in the taxes mentioned is not available.

Mr. Costain: Will the Treasury take this seriously and work out what the reduction is, and then appreciate what an extraordinary waste of money, effort and time of the civil servants is represented by having this tax-collecting measure, and that it has done much to cut down our housing programme?

Mr. Rodgers: The principle of the betterment levy has been debated from time to time; I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not yet been convinced.

Income Tax (Schedule D)

Mr. Donald Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the present practice of issuing at an early date within the year of assessment provisional assessments under Schedule D.

Mr. Diamond: I am satisfied that the present practice is right, but I will gladly look at any case in which difficulties have arisen.

Mr. Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the early issue of these provisional assessments only acts as an irritant to the taxpayer and wastes the time of both the Inland Revenue and the tax advisers?

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir, that is not the case. These early assessments are not made where it is thought that, without making them, an assessment would arise in time for tax to be collected. We in this House put on the Revenue the responsibility of collecting the tax, and the assessments have to be made sufficiently in advance of that.

Investment Grants

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the revenue of investment and initial allowances as compared with the cost of investment grants.

Mr. Diamond: The true comparison is between the present system of investment grants and the associated capital allowances and the whole of the previous system of capital allowances, including investment allowances, and Local Employment Act grants. It is expected that over a period, the present system will cost much the same as the previous system would have cost had it continued.

Mr. Sheldon: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, although the sharpness of the instruments can be considerably improved, nevertheless there have been great advances in the investment grant system over the previous capital allowances and that this system should be continued, because we are introducing direct incentives to plant and machinery, as opposed to a whole range of unnecessary objects in the previous system?

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to one of the advantages of the present system. Of course, he and I would share fully the view that a further advantage is the effect on the development areas.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, before the 1966 White Paper on investment incentives, a considerable amount of research work was done, by the N.E.D.C., the C.B.I. and various other authorities, on what the amounts of additional investment would be according to the various

methods adopted for promoting it? In the light of experience with the investment grants scheme, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that additional research work should be done by the Treasury to decide whether it is proving effective in practice?

Mr. Diamond: The system is already under review all the time, but it is almost impossible to identify the particular causes of particular variations in investment rates.

AIRCRAFT NOISE

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now transfer the whole of the responsibility for dealing with aircraft noise to the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy of that Answer. Will he none the less reconsider, as the Board is concerned with trade and not with amenity, appointing a Department which would more efficiently and energetically carry out the duty of safeguarding the citizen in this respect?

The Prime Minister: As courteously as I can, I would point out that my right hon. Friend has responsibility for civil aviation, and has to make regulations and deal with all the problems of noise arising from aircraft flying in the vicinity of our great airports. I understand that my right hon. Friend will—I hope before the Easter Recess—announce further measures in relation to noise regulations.

Dr. Winstanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those living alongside airports, like my constituents, are more concerned with what is done than with who does it and that they are much encouraged by the sympathetic and understanding attitude of the present Minister of State? Since action against aircraft noise without imperilling safety costs money, will he confirm that money will be made available for this important purpose?

The Prime Minister: In this atmosphere of almost unprecedented courtesy, I would say that my right hon. Friend


is addressing himself very much to this question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the legislation which we introduced in a previous Parliament for giving financial subventions for people living in the vicinity of an airport—which, of course, costs money. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is concerned with matters of research into aircraft engine noise and means of reducing the noise of particular engines. That is why it is not possible to put all these responsibilities under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning.

EUROPE (MONNET COMMITTEE)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek an invitation to attend in his official capacity the next meeting of the Monnet Committee for a United States of Europe in order to discuss Great Britain's attitude towards European federalism.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: As the Government have recently affirmed their total opposition to any federalism or supernatural—supranational—[Laughter.]—either would do—should the right hon. Gentleman not explain to our European friends and to this House what the Foreign Secretary means when he expresses his great enthusiasm for political unity in Europe? Is there not something slightly incompatible between these two statements in practice?

The Prime Minister: I have answered this question many times in the House, most recently on 3rd February in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck). I should have thought that all hon. Members were in favour of greater political unity in Europe. This does not mean federal or—I will try to get it right—supranational institutions on the political or defence side.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Why is the Foreign Secretary still a member of that committee? In view of the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and myself, that Britain would not join

a federal Europe, would he instruct the Foreign Secretary to resign from that Committee?

The Prime Minister: By no means. Representatives on the Monnet Committee from Britain—it is only fairly recently that they have joined—represent the political parties in this House and not Governments, Oppositions or anything else. But my right hon. Friend, as a Minister, wherever he goes, is bound by the policies of the Government and the collective responsibilities of the Government, and he has never at any point associated himself with policies differing from those which he and I have proclaimed in the House.

MERSEYSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA (VISIT)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Merseyside development area during the present session of Parliament.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the Merseyside development area during the present Session of Parliament.

The Prime Minister: I frequently visit Merseyside, and shall be there next week.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that my constituents have an interest in conditions on Merseyside by virtue of the taxes which they pay and which go towards the £18 million a year which is paid out by way of the regional employment premium to firms on Merseyside? Since, as a result of these policies and despite the Prime Minister's visits, unemployment in the last year has gone up from 3·5 per cent. to 3·8 per cent., does the right hon. Gentleman think that my constituents are getting value for money?

The Prime Minister: As to whether they are—[Interruption.]—getting value from their hon. Member, that, of course, is a matter for them to decide. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that he would, for example, de-schedule Merseyside as a development area. To the extent that it is not de-scheduled, they are entitled to S.E.T. refunds and R.E.P., and we have justified these.
I am glad to be able to tell him that while unemployment in his constituency is a matter of concern seasonally, the difference between Blackpool—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked if his constituents were getting value for money and I am telling him. The difference between——

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Get on with it.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry if I am speaking too slowly for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's quick perception.
I was about to say that I am glad to tell the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) that unemployment in the Blackpool area at the seasonal peak in January was 5·3 per cent., as against 7·3 per cent. in January, 1963, and 6 per cent. in January, 1964.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he would be most welcome to visit, when he next comes to Merseyside, which I understand will be next weekend, all the Merseyside constituencies and see the new hospitals that are being built since Labour came to power—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the new roads that are being built—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the new houses and flats that are being built—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the new factories that are being built—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and to look at all the other positive achievements that have been made since Labour came to office?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said, and I see the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) about to rise to his feet to support my hon. Friend's remarks. In fact, I cannot get to my constituency without travelling through my hon. Friend's constituency or through the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) or the hon. Member for Wavertree. I have seen the evidence to support what my hon. Friend said in all three constituencies.

Mr. Heath: When the Hunt Committee recommended the de-scheduling of Merseyside, which the Government rejected, how could that committee have been expected to know that unemployment on Merseyside, which was 18,000

when the Prime Minister fought the General Election in 1966 on the basis that there would be no increase in unemployment, would now be 30,000? Is that what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) wants the Prime Minister to see when he goes to Merseyside—unemployment rising from 18,000 to 30,000 in that space of time?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the figures that I gave. The unemployment figures have actually fallen—from 4·7 in January, 1964, to 3·8 per cent. now—on Merseyside. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that Merseyside should be de-scheduled as a development area, he should say so.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mahon.

Mr. Heath: I was asked—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Mahon.

Mr. Simon Mahon: When my right hon. Friend comes to Merseyside, which he does frequently, will he remember that many of us lived through the days of Toryism on Merseyside and that there is no great anxiety for those days to return? Will he accept the gratitude of my constituents for sending thousands of jobs to Bootle, which is becoming known as the Whitehall of the North?

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Oh dear.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will understand, in view of his experience—I know the part that he and others from Bootle have played in the work of the Merseyside Development Association—why hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand that it is a continuing battle on Merseyside to find jobs for the area as a result of, for example, the high birth rate on Merseyside, not to mention immigration from Ireland—[Interruption.]—which floods into Merseyside when there are jobs available. I do not think that it would be the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite—at least, of most of them—to stop that.
My hon. Friend will also understand what it has meant for Merseyside that the total financial assistance to the development area, which was running at £2·1


million in 1963–64, was, in 1968–69, running at £49·6 million.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Barnett, next Question.

Mr. Tilney: On a point of order. As the Prime Minister referred to me when replying to a supplementary question, would you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that I should have the right to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: No hon. Member has a right to a supplementary question.

POVERTY

Mr. Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a Royal Commission on Poverty in Great Britain.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This Government have taken substantial steps towards the abolition of poverty by increasing the levels of benefit and by other measures, and are currently promoting further legislation to this end. We are also engaged in extensive further investigation into a variety of problems affecting vulnerable groups in the community.

Mr. Barnett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we need an objective and comprehensive inquiry to provide an independent definition of poverty to help us consider ways of relieving it? Is he further aware that this is particularly important in the light of Opposition policies which would bring millions more into the poverty levels, through, for example, Tory policies on housing and council house rent increases?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. That is why hon. Gentlemen opposite are so coy to discuss their housing and social security policies. I am concerned only with the facts, and not with shadows.
The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that our first attack on poverty was made in 1964, when we dealt with pensions, widows and the earnings rule. We then had rent rebates for nearly 1 million less well-off householders and an abolition of National Assistance. Then, as the poverty problem became more and more

identified with large families, there came our action on family allowances, with further pension increases in 1967 and 1969, and now we have the National Superannuation Bill.

Sir D. Renton: Would not some help with family planning in many cases help to prevent poverty?

The Prime Minister: We have often debated that matter in the House, but I do not accept that it is the answer to the problem of poverty. The problem of poverty is a widespread one containing lots of small pockets of poverty. For example, for old people one of the biggest aspects is loneliness, and that is why we have trebled our programme for the provision of places in old people's homes. Family planning is a very different issue on which I have in the past answered Questions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Heath: If the Prime Minister is not going to have an inquiry of his own, will he address himself to the conclusions of the Child Poverty Action Group, especially the one on page 13 of its report, which says, in effect, that under Labour priority has not been given to low-income families and that in some respects they are worse off under Labour than they were before? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this supports the accusation that is often made from the back benches opposite about the compulsory incomes and prices policy having made a lot of lower-paid workers worse off? Does the Prime Minister recognise that in his self-made poverty crisis the weakest have gone to the wall?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have studied enough economic affairs in the last 24 hours to know that the economic crisis is not self-made by those on this side of the House. Right hon. Members opposite made it and we cured it. Until his last few words he was addressing himself to a very serious problem and a very serious report, the report of the Child Poverty Action Group. As I said, we had to give attention first to long-neglected problems of the old people, widows and others, and only late in the day were we able to find resources for dealing with large families through family allowances. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will repudiate Tories who up and down the country try to


make political capital out of the increase in family allowances. After what he has said, I am sure that he will do so. I do not accept that the position of the low-incomes group is worse than when we came into office. It has been a question of priorities and I think we have now got our priorities right. I would be very concerned—this is a very hypothetical question—about the effect on poverty over a very much wider range if the right hon. Gentleman's policies, when we know what they are, were to be carried out.

PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in New York on the state of the United Kingdom economy to the Foundation of Automation and Employment on 27th January.

The Prime Minister: I did so, Sir, on 27th January.

Mr. Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that now Britain has achieved a trade surplus for six months in succession amply justifies the optimistic tone of his speech in New York? Has he received any intimation from the Leader of the Opposition that he wishes to correct the mischievous, damaging, disparaging and incorrect remarks he made in his coast-to-coast interview on his visit to New York?

The Prime Minister: I have always said that we cannot judge trade performance by a single month's figures whether they are good or bad, but it is almost unknown within living memory that we have had a physical surplus on visible trade in this country. The fact that we now have had one for six months suggests that the trend is in the right direction. As for the right hon. Gentleman, I must leave this to him, but even the Conservative Daily Express has as its main headline "Great Great Britain". Even the right hon. Gentleman might decide that his sour-puss philosophy is not right for the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Statement by the Minister of Technology on supersonic sound.

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT (TEST ROUTES)

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on Concorde test routes.
The bulk of Concorde's supersonic testing will take place over the sea. But for a small proportion of tests a route affecting some land areas is necessary for technical and safety reasons. In the light of discussions with the authorities concerned, and after carefully weighing the various factors involved, the Government have decided to authorise the use of a route along the west coast.
Copies of two maps of the test routes, including that along the west coast, will be available to Members in the Vote Office.
Flying along the west coast route will not start before the spring. Use of the route will be strictly limited to ensure that there is as little disturbance as possible to the public. If any claims for compensation for damage arise they should be addressed to the Concorde Division of my Department.
In due course an Order in Council will be laid before the House extending the protection of Section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, to Crown civil aircraft including those engaged on the test flights and providing a statutory basis for compensation.
This decision to allow a limited number of supersonic test flights overland does not prejudge in any way the issue of whether aircraft should be allowed to fly supersonically over this country in commercial service. This question is being kept under review. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will announce a decision in due course in the light of further information and research on the problem.

Mr. Corfield: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I—and, I hope, all my hon. and right hon. Friends—accept the necessity for some test flights overland, and in doing so particularly welcome the strictly limited nature of these tests and the fact that they do not in any way prejudge the decision on operational flights? May I also express the hope that those who are inconvenienced by


these flights will at least try to seek consolation in the knowledge that they will thereby be making a contribution to a great national, and indeed international, achievement?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said. A great deal of trouble has been taken in 14 separate presentations by the Department to those likely to be concerned and during discussions something of what he put into his supplementary question has been reflected back to us.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Twenty hon. Members wish to put supplementary questions. I must protect the business of the House. Questions must be brief.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his statement indicates that the programme of Concorde is still on target? Is he still optimistic that we shall obtain a very good return from the money that the country is spending on this advanced project?

Mr. Benn: The programme is going well. I can confirm that. We shall not know about the return until the orders for Concorde have been finally placed.

Mr. Fortescue: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, no matter what the result of these tests, the ability or otherwise of Concorde to fly supersonically overland in Europe will make no difference to its viability over trans-Atlantic routes?

Mr. Benn: Yes. There is no relationship between the two. I underline that these are tests of Concorde, not tests of the acceptability of the supersonic bang. I emphasise that these are two quite separate issues.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not clear that they are not tests of acceptability, because if that were the case the aircraft would need to be tested over urban areas and if that were done the uproar would be so great that the project would have to be cancelled immediately?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend has been quite consistent in his total opposition to the programme throughout, on the grounds which he has put forward, but the object of these tests is to test the performance characteristics of the aircraft

and in such a way as to create the minimum of disturbance.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman amplify his reference to statutory compensation? Is this a new element in the law of compensation and, if so, would it perhaps serve as a model for an extension of compensation in a more general field?

Mr. Benn: Behind that innocent question must lie some subtlety which brings me to the limit of my legal knowledge. I will refer it to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is my right hon. Friend correct in saying that these researches are necessary? May they not prove that the airports most acceptable for these aircraft are centred on the coast? Is this not at variance with the Government having refused to support Liverpool Airport, which is on the coast?

Mr. Benn: That question is certainly for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but I doubt whether he would connect these two issues—whether one should have supersonic aircraft and whether Liverpool should have the new airport it wishes to have—because they are quite separate.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the proposed route passes very close to if not actually over my constituency, I share his view that we should not pass advance judgment on the noise level or any other interference? Will he say whether, under the procedure for compensation, he will ensure that, if necessary, claims will be referred to an impartial authority?

Mr. Benn: There will be opportunity for discussing the compensation point on the Order which my right hon. Friend will present to the House. I should need further advice on this point.

Mr. Cronin: Assuming that Concorde will fly at operational height, is my right hon. Friend not being pessimistic in implying that there will be widespread disturbance and damage requiring compensation?

Mr. Benn: I did not say so, but experience suggests that there will be claims for compensation. We must not


pretend that although the aircraft will be flying at a considerable height there will not be considerable disturbance from the bang, because there will be.

Sir A. V. Harvey: To what extent is the right hon. Gentleman collaborating with the United States authorities over the tests with a view eventually to getting the Concorde accepted into Idlewild?

Mr. Benn: There has been a great deal of contact between ourselves and the French and American authorities with a view to minimising the difficulties that might arise from the entry of Concorde into service. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is the senior aviation authority in this country.

Mr. MacDermot: Is it intended to measure the sound effects of the tests—not the subjective reactions of people to the sound, but how much actual noise is being made over what area? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be, without much further delay, a proper study of the subjective reaction to Concorde's sound before any decisions are taken?

Mr. Benn: Although the object of the flight is to test the aircraft we shall take the opportunity of testing the noise experienced on the ground. We shall, as in the early French tests, test this in both a scientific and subjective way. I have seen the early reports from there. We shall get the most we can from an operation designed to prove the performance characteristics.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will Concorde fly over any part of Wales? If so, will it endanger such an ancient monument as St. David's Cathedral? If it does, what compensation can there be for that?

Mr. Benn: As the map will show the hon. Gentleman, it will touch on the territory of Wales. The cathedral to

which he refers is one of three which will be specially studied during the flights. We have no reason to believe that the worst fears that have been expressed about this have any basis of justification.

Mr. Rankin: Within what limits, north and south, will the Concorde operate? Shall we have a report on the flights in due course?

Mr. Benn: I should stress that I am speaking only of about 50 flights on this route over a three-year period. The rest will take place over the North Sea. The Concorde will fly from off the coast of France to the very northernmost part of Scotland. This 800-mile route will extend over the whole period. We shall, of course, keep the House informed.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of us in the South-West are proud to think that we can play a very small part in the development of this plane? Does he agree that adequate compensation is needed, and that commercially flying the plane is an entirely different matter?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlying the total difference between the commercial rules which may apply in respect of supersonic flight and this test. I am also grateful for what he said earlier, which will be appreciated by those making the aircraft all over the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sheldon: What are the technical reasons my right hon. Friend has referred to?

Mr. Benn: There must be a very long straight run to calibrate the instruments. It is not possible to do this wholly over the sea for this purpose in these 50 or so flights without running into difficulties of air-sea rescue, radar control and various other technical matters. The pilot, Brian Trubshaw, has associated himself with at any rate some of these presentations in order to underline exactly what the technical factors are.

BILLS PRESENTED

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1963 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins presented a Bill to amend section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed [Bill 101].

AGE LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Edward Milne, supported by Mr. Adam Hunter, Sir Myer Galpern, Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. Robert Woof, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. Archie Manuel, Mr. Roy Roebuck, Mr. David Watkins, and Mr. David Winnick, presented a Bill to prevent employers from refusing employment to persons on the sole ground that they are aged 45 years or over: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10th April and to be printed [Bill 99].

RACE RELATIONS ACT 1965 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 6(1) of the Race Relations Act 1965.
My purpose is to achieve an important, but I hope not controversial, change in the Race Relations Act, 1965. It may assist the House if I straight away remind hon. Members of the text of Section 6(1), which says:
A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race, or ethnic or national origins—

(a) he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting; or
(b) he uses in any public place or at any public meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting,

being matter or words likely to stir up hatred aaginst that section on grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.
That wording imported a fundamental change in our law governing the liberty of speech. Whereas until that Act the test had been an utterance not calculated but liable to disturb public order, Section 6 established that the actual words used in speech or writing might constitute the offence.
The change was debated at great length in Committee. Now we have had five years in which to weigh its effect. There has been a small number of prosecutions, of which the most notable was that of Michael X. I think it fair to say that in the light of our experience many are doubtful today whether the Section is conducive to racial harmony. This is not idle speculation. Both Mr. Frank Cousins, in his capacity as Chairman of the Community Relations Commission, and Mr. Mark Bonham Carter, Chairman of the Race Relations Board, have expressed their doubts on that score. They have made it clear that they would support the repeal of the Section. I have their words by me, though I shall not take up the time of the House by quoting them.
Others, I know, consider that Section 6 as it stands infringes freedom of speech and may appear to give special privileges to immigrants. It must seem to those


who concern themselves with race relations, therefore, that it is not a particularly helpful contribution.
I want in fairness to strike a cautionary note. In contrast to the views I have mentioned, there are Jewish leaders who consider that one effect of Section 6 has been to reduce the amount of anti-Semitic filth which has been in circulation. I would not treat that lightly; It must be weighed. Nevertheless, on balance, I submit that the case for repeal is strong.
In many directions since 1965 speech, writing and expression have become a great deal freer—too free for some tastes. Censorship, at least for the time being, is in low regard and so are those who would defend themselves by it. I see great force in the words used by the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in defending the Section. He said, in effect, that society cannot continue in a sensible, ordered, integrated form if there is complete and utter licence to say precisely what one likes on any occasions.
Against that, I think that there is much said in anger, even in hatred, on public occasions that is best forgotten and not proceeded against and not made into perhaps a cause célèbre. That is also part of the British tradition. We owe a lot, as the world recognises better than we do, to this concept of liberality within a context of order. I would like to think that the immigrants in this country could now share that valued tradition. On balance, I think that it would enhance rather than diminish their status, and it is that consideration, above all, that leads me to propose this change.

Mr. David Winnick (Croydon, South): Mr. David Winnick (Croydon, South) rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose?

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Winnick: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I disagree with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), but I appreciate that he has genuine motives in seeking to introduce the Bill. I know that many people in favour of both the 1965 and 1968 Acts nevertheless believe that Section 6 of the 1965 Act does not do anything for racial harmony and should be removed.
While I oppose the right hon. Gentleman, I sincerely understand his motives and do not question them in any way. But it is important for the House to recognise what is being proposed. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from Section 6(1) and I would like to do so. It says:
A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race or ethnic or national origins—(a) he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting …
I have given the matter a great deal of consideration and it seems that if we are to repeal the Section it would lead to certain action. I would like to give the House my opinion of what would happen.
First, it would take away the protection which certain minority groups have at the moment against deliberate attempts to incite race hatred. Much of what used to be written, foul offensive racialist slander, can no longer be written as a result of this Section. If we were to do what the right hon. Gentleman advocates we would be taking away this basic protection from many minority groups. Secondly, it would encourage the extremist, lunatic racialist fringe which now has to be more careful in what it says and writes.
I say with all seriousness that, bearing in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, if we were to do what he is advocating it would be considered a victory by this small, minority, racialist, fringe which wants to see the ending of the whole of the Race Relations Act, Section 6 included. Any repeal of this Section would once again foul our society by these groups, who deliberately want to stir up race hatred.
I would remind the House of the events of Notting Hill in 1958. Before they took place a number of small groups of people were deliberately inciting race hatred. There was no legal action which could be taken against such groups then. They were not breaking the law, but that stirring up of hatred led to the disturbance we all know about in the summer of 1958.
I hope that we will not take any action which will give encouragement to groups in our society who desire to stir


up hatred against people because of the colour of their skin or their racial origin. The Section applies to all people in the country. I have not got the latest figures, but, going by 1968, it seems that there were four cases under the Section concerning nine white people and three cases concerning six coloured people.
I know that it is sometimes argued that the more sophisticated type of racialism is not covered by this Section, and I accept that. We know that there are some people who, in a more sophisticated way, stir up prejudice, if not hatred, against minority groups. But I see no reason why we should remove a law which acts against the more offensive type of hatred. If there are certain weaknesses in the Section I do not see why we should undermine it completely, since it does give protection to minority groups.
As a Member of Parliament and a citizen of this country I deeply regret any restriction of freedom of speech, but any legislation passed by this House is an infringement on some people's freedom. Any law we pass restricts the freedom of action of some people. I believe that we are justified in taking action against those who want to abuse freedom of

speech. If the situation changed, and if there were not the sort of groups I have mentioned, I would be the first to see Section 6 done away with altogether.

Because I believe that there is still a necessity for it, we should not take any action along the lines advocated by the right hon. Gentleman. It is necessary to protect all people in our country, all minorities, as well as the majority. The Act covers illegal action taken by whites or coloureds. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a case, about which we know, concerning a coloured person. It is extremely important, when we look at the experience abroad and certainly in America, that we do not allow these poisonous people, putting forward racialist filth, to do their utmost to stir up hatred. Because there is a need for this Section, it is with reluctance that I have to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's application.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 197.

Division No. 66.]
AYES
[3.55 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Eyre, Reginald
MacArthur, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley


Awdry, Daniel
Fortescuc, Tim
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Bell, Ronald
Glover, Sir Douglas
Monro, Hector


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Goodhew, Victor
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyfte, Sir Charles


Blaker, Peter
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Murton, Oscar


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nichols, Sir Harmar


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Braine, Bernard
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brewis, John
Hastings, Stephen
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hawkins, Paul
Peyton, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hill, J. E. B.
Pym, Francis


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hordern, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, Julian


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooke, Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Russell, Sir Ronald


Corfield, F. V.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Costain, A. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kershaw, Anthony
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow.Cathcart)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tilney, John


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshaiton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Waddington, David


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek




Walters, Dennis
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Wylie, N. R.


Ward, Dame Irene
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)



Weatherill, Bernard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. Richard Sharples and


Wiggin, A. W.
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. William Deedes.




NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Allen, Scholefield
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gregory, Arnold
Moyle, Roland


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Murray, Albert


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Neal, Harold


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Newens, Stan


Barnett, Joel
Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric


Beaney, Alan
Hannan, William
O'Halloran, Michael


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Bessell, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Bert


Bishop, E. S.
Haseldine, Norman
Orbach, Maurice


Blackburn, F.
Hazell, Bert
Orme, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Henig, Stanley
Paget, R. T.


Boston, Terence
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bradley, Tom
Hooley, Frank
Park, Trevor


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Huckfield, Leslie
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Sir Barnett
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Coe, Denis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Merlyn


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Cronin, John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roebuck, Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Latham, Arthur
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


de Freitas, Rt Hn Sir Geoffrey
Lomas Kenneth
Silverman, Julius




Slater, Joseph


Dempsey, James
Lubbock, Eric
Small, William


Dewar, Donald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, Julian


Dickens, James
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Dobson, Ray
MacColl, James
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Doig, Peter
MacDermot, Niall
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Driberg, Tom
Macdonald, A. H.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McElhone, Frank
Thornton, Ernest


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McGuire, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals, David
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Weitzman, David


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wilkins, W. A.


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Finch, Harold
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marquand, David
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mayhew, Christopher
Winnick, David


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ford, Ben
Mikardo, Ian
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. Sydney Bidwell and


Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. John Lee


Ginsburg, David

Orders of the Day — ROADS (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have published, as is my wont, my selection of Amendments for the Report stage. We begin with new Clause 1, with which we are taking Government Amendment No. 50.

New Clause 1

ACQUISITION OF LAND BY AGREEMENT IN ADVANCE OF REQUIREMENTS.

Any power of a highway authority under section 29, 30, or 31 of this Act to acquire land by agreement for a purpose therein mentioned shall be exercisable in respect of any land which, in the opinion of the highway authority, may be required for that purpose, notwithstanding that the land is not immediately required for that purpose.—[Dr. Dickson Mahon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Amendment, as you suggested, Mr. Speaker, is consequential upon the new Clause.
So far as the Secretary of State is concerned, this Clause is pure re-enactment, because he already possesses powers to acquire land in advance of requirements by virtue of Section 46 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1959, which refers back to his previous powers to acquire land under the restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, as read with the Trunk Roads and Special Roads Acts.
The purpose of the clause is not really to deal with the re-enactment of the Secretary of State's position, but, as a new matter, to give express power to local highway authorities to acquire land in advance of requirements for certain roads purposes. This is a power which local authorities already possess in relation to virtually all their other functions. For instance, Section 143(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1966, authorises acquisition in advance for housing and Section

157 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, authorises acquisition in advance of requirements for local authority purposes generally, though not for roads purposes.
This enabling power applies only to land acquired under Clause 29 for the construction and improvement of a highway, under Clause 30 for purposes connected with trunk and special roads, or under Clause 31 for the provision of building or facilities needed for the discharge of the highway authority's functions. It does not seem appropriate for the other powers of land acquisition—that is to say, Clause 32—land to provide a new private access—or Clause 33—land for works on side roads in connection with constructing or improving a classified road. Prior knowledge of the need for land in these cases seems unlikely.
The power to acquire land in advance of requirements is a very reasonable one for highway authorities to have. It could, for instance, be used if land comes on the market which, the authority knows, will in some years be needed for highway construction or improvement. This could be particularly useful in urban areas. Another possible use is where single carriageways are being constructed, but it is expected that after some years the road will be improved to dual carriageway standard. In such a case, it may be desirable to acquire all the land at the same time. There can be no hardship to property owners, since the power applies only to land acquired by agreement.
We have, naturally, consulted the local authority associations about this, and they will be grateful for this parliamentary favour if the House so wishes.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: We on this side of the House certainly accept the new Clause in principle and the reason why the Government are bringing it forward. The Clause gives local highway authorities extremely wide powers indeed, particularly if we refer, as the Clause does, to Clause 31 of the Bill, which says:
… the highway authority may acquire by agreement or compulsorily land wherever situated …".
That does show to the House what we are doing if we pass this Clause. Obviously, when we are giving highway authorities powers as wide as these it is


right that we should ask them how they will use these powers and in what circumstances and I am grateful to the Minister of State for the explanation he has given.
It is my understanding of the Clause—and I think that it is confirmed by what the Minister of State said—that this power is already available to the Secretary of State, both in relation to trunk roads and to special roads, under the Acts of 1946 and 1949. But even in those Acts it seems that the powers are fairly well circumscribed. First, they are circumscribed in relation to what they may be used for—construction and improvement. Secondly, they are confined to land within 220 yards of the road. Thirdly, there are even tighter restrictions under Section 5 of the 1946 Act which deals with preventing buildings interfering with views and one or two other very specific restrictions of that nature.
This goes back to what I said earlier. It appears to me that while the Secretary of State may have these powers already they are confined to trunk and special roads. The circumstances in which the powers can be used are very restricted indeed.
While we are not opposed to this in principle, I should like to have heard a little more—if my interpretation of the previous Acts is correct—about why, in relation to the highway authority and not to the Secretary of State, is it necessary, to extend these powers, very much more widely than they are at the moment? In particular, what safeguards are there to ensure that these powers are exercised responsibly by the local authorities?

Earl of Dalkeith: My suspicions are always aroused when the Government produce a new Clause like this after the Committee stage of a Bill and I wonder what has prompted them suddenly to bring this one forward. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us what request there has suddenly been for this power, which is fairly extensive, although, in presenting the case for the Clause, he made it sound very innocuous and innocent. No one could object to what the Clause aims to do, but we must know more about it.
Is there a demand from the highway authorities for this power? If so, is it not surprising that they did not think of

it sooner? It would give the authorities scope for buying up enormous areas of land should they wish to do so, although it would admittedly be by agreement and not by compulsory acquisition. We must remember that 220 yards on each side of a road stretching for one mile means a total of 170 acres, and this could make quite a hole in someone's farm, even though it would be by agreement. One wants to be sure, when giving authorities powers to do these things, that such powers are not likely to be abused.
I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the power was already available in previous legislation, and if this is just a tidying-up operation there is no harm in that. But, in the context of the Bill, which aims to speed up the process of getting new roads built and ready for driving on and at encouraging everyone to be co-operative and drop their objections virtually before they start, I wonder whether this power will not arouse some feeling which will discourage people from being as co-operative as they might otherwise have been.
I give an example where this sort of power is not perhaps necessary. Only two weeks ago, I signed a deed selling a piece of land belonging to a company with which I am associated to a local highway authority. Having signed the deed, which enabled the authority to buy the land, I said to a friend, "Let us look at the site". He replied, "The work is already done. It is a lay-by". The lay-by was built before the deed for sale was actually executed.
This is an example of where co-operation by private individuals can speed up the process of getting roads or lay-bys where they are wanted. I wonder, therefore, whether the new Clause is really necessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give more justification for it.

Mr. Hector Monro: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) in asking whether the new Clause is necessary. I do not want to see acres of productive land lying fallow while highway authorities are deciding whether to build a road or are waiting for Government approval for the finance. In a case where the highway authority, and through that the Scottish Development Department, buys land for a highway, but eventually


decides that it is the wrong land and does not wish to use it after all, may we have an assurance that the original owners will have the first opportunity to buy back that land for their own farms?

4.15 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I agree that, in the exercise of this power, the local authorities must be sensible and must not take over too much land in advance of what their needs are. I agree that, if they have land in their stewardship which they cannot use at the time—and there will be free negotiation—then the tenant farmers or others concerned should be allowed to carry on farming as long as it is administratively practical for them to do so. This is a matter of judgment by the local authorities concerned. What we are debating is the principle of allowing local authorities to do what they do in regard to every other function they discharge. Neither party has dissented from that principle at any time. We are seeking to correct an anomaly.
I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) that the Government deserve a great deal of praise for their ability to bring in Bills and add very few new Clauses to them on Report, but even this Government are not completely perfect and occasionally we do find, on second thoughts, that it is worth while trying to set an anomaly right. So, with some modesty, we put forward new Clause 1 in the hope that the House will agree that this should be done before the Bill goes to another place.
On the general principle, as paralleled by the powers of the Secretary of State, there is no difference between the nature of his powers here and those we are seeking to extend to the local authorities. I confirm that we are taking here a power which applies only to land acquired by agreement and therefore with good will. Whether I should compliment the Border county concerned in the example given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North on the speed with which it carried out the work he described, or should seek to condone his reluctance to sign over the deed because lie was busy on parliamentary duties, I cannot say on the facts at present. But that transfer would not have happened

without the consent of both parties, and I leave the matter there.
On the question of the figure of 220 yards, I do not want to anticipate Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, although I note that the hon. Gentleman has not added his name to them. It is a matter for further argument later. I think that I have covered all the other points raised in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second tune and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

PROCEDURE IN SCHEMES AND ORDERS FOR SPECIAL ROADS AND TRUNK ROADS

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 22, after first 'on', insert 'an aerial photograph or'.
It is surprising that it should be necessary to move this Amendment because, following a fairly lengthy debate in Committee, the Minister of State went some way towards indicating that he would look at the point raised very seriously, and one would have expected him to bring in an appropriate Government Amendment. He told the Committee on 16th December, when he was full of anticipation of the Christmas Recess:
I am prepared to look at this whole question in terms of the regulations to ensure that all ancillary aids are, where appropriate, used to supplement the basic provision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 16th December, 1969; c. 20]
We hoped that this would include the use of aerial photographs.
It is not necessary for me now to go over the whole argument again. We expressed the view at the time that it was extraordinary that, in the 1970s, the Minister of State and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) still showed such reluctance to be interested in or even know that there was such a thing as aerial photography and would much prefer to deal with maps, even if they were 50 years out of date.
I explained that some 25-inch Ordnance Survey maps are 50 years out of date and that, therefore, an up-to-date aerial photograph could be very much more accurate than such maps. I indicated how the


speed of provision of an aerial photograph could be much greater than the provision of a map and could be more accurate. There could be vertical or oblique photographs and there are other advantages, such as the archaeological interest, which may be developed by using oblique aerial photography. Even a layman would understand an aerial photograph, particularly if he had a stereoscopic viewer.
The Minister produced arguments against the proposal which he did absolutely nothing to substantiate. He said that it was rather expensive to produce aerial photographs but I insisted that it was not and volunteered to take photographs of his garden, or that of his hon. Friend for a very modest sum.
Secondly, the Minister said aerial photographs were difficult to read, but, here again, the majority of the Committee were quite sure that laymen could understand such photographs perfectly well. The final argument of the Minister was that he had been a battery sergeant major in the Gunners and had never understood such a photograph. As a pilot in the R.A.F., that is something which I understand and in which I quite concur. But the point is that here in the 1970s aerial photography is of great importance and widely used in surveying, road-making and map-making. We on this side of the House feel strongly that there should be this supplement to maps and that it would be of great advantage under Clause 1.

Mr. John Brewis: I would like briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) because I believe that aerial photography is easier for the layman to understand in that it is visual rather than schematic, and that we should allow aerial photographs to be used when we make regulations. I cannot think why the Minister is objecting to this Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I do not dissent from what the hon. Member for Galloway has just said. There is no reason why, in the regulations, we cannot make reference to aerial photographs and their value as a supplementary factor in determining these important matters. I thought that he summed up the case very well, but the House will remember that in Committee, during my pre-wedding euphoria, I said

that I would consider quite a number of matters connected with the Bill, which was my obsession during my honeymoon.
On reflection, I realise that when it comes to a question of law and the interests of property, whether extensive property or the property or smallholdings of individuals, it is very important that the last ground of appeal should be something clearly understood and recognised. That is why we have stuck to this old-fashioned legal view of requiring a map. I have here some very good examples which I can show hon. Members privately of maps which are, in effect, a combination—or collusion is probably the right word—of aerial photographs. They are just as accurate as some maps that have been produced on occasions when there are arguments about property affected by road developments, perhaps even more accurate.
I am not arguing against aerial photography as such, but against it being a basic ground on which objectors and others base their arguments against the various orders that may be involved in relation to trunk roads, special roads, side roads and other matters connected with road-making. That is the whole point on which I found my rejection of this Amendment. I do not object to the sentiment behind it and am very glad that the Amendment has been moved so that I have been able to confirm that we shall seek to bring this into regulations so that air photography will have its place, as it must have, in road-making.
But I am putting on record as a principle of law and of discussion on property involved in road-making that we believe that it is better to stick to the basic instrument, namely, the map, without arguing about extensive areas of ground or small holdings. That is the point I am putting to the House and I shall expect to get its sympathy, particularly in view of the fact that as an ex-Gunner I demonstrated my affection for aerial photography.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: For the Minister to say he did not need any aerial photographs on his honeymoon was disappointing, since during this period he has had time to consider this Amendment but has not been prepared to move in any way towards accepting our point of view. My point, made also by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, was that we are


not stating categorically in the Amendment that there has to be an aerial photograph. There is an alternative here, so that if the Minister of State or the Secretary of State, or a highway authority wants to use a map rather than an aerial photograph there is perfect freedom to do so. There is no compulsion on the use of an aerial photograph.
Having said that it is there as an alternative throws open the question why, if it is just an alternative, there is any need for it. But the Minister of State gave the answer when he admitted that with modern developments a combination of map and aerial photography was probably as accurate as anything we can get. It may not be practical at the moment, with that particular kind of photography, to support a road scheme, but we see no reason why one should close one's mind to this being practical in the future, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has said, many of the maps which are used in these instances are extremely old, some as much as 50 years old and, in one case of which I know, nearly 70 years old, whereas an aerial photograph is something completely up to date.
I would have thought, therefore, that by writing this provision into this Clause we are not bringing in an obligation for an aerial photograph to be used, but giving the opportunity so that particularly in the case of new developments, an aerial photograph can be used instead of a map where it is thought appropriate in particular circumstances. Taking u all in all, therefore, I would have thought it would have been better to write such a provision into the Bill rather than leave it as a matter for regulation and I feel that my hon. Friend is right in moving this Amendment.

Mr. Monro: It appears that the Minister has returned inflexible. We will have to leave him happy in the arms of the Elizabethan era. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 27, leave out '50' and insert '25'.
This Amendment deals with the whole question of the degree of deviation that is allowed in the publication of any order

in relation to a special or trunk road. This issue was debated at some length in Committee, when, with all due respect to the pre-wedding euphoria of the hon. Gentleman, the Committee was left in considerable confusion. The debate started with a discussion of how much a deviation should be and what was right or appropriate in particular circumstances, but the Committee did not learn exactly how and when this degree of deviation occurs.
Therefore, in moving this Amendment at this stage of the Bill I wish to raise two specific points. The first colours very much the more detailed point of whether degrees of deviation should be 50 or 25 metres. I wonder whether the Minister could explain exactly how this power to deviate is applied.
4.30 p.m.
Having read the Bill again, and having reread the reports of the Committee, particularly the Minister's speeches, as I understand the fact that a deviation is to take place and the degree of variation must be specified in an order for a special road or trunk road. Unless a specific provision is made for deviation in the order, no deviation is possible. Perhaps the Minister will confirm this.
If provision is made for deviation and the degree of deviation is specified within limits not exceeding 50 metres as the Bill stands, the order could specify a deviation of 20 or 25 metres or any other distance which the Secretary of State in promoting the order may decide. That degree of deviation will be shown on the map, so that anyone affected by it may see exactly how he is affected. It has taken me a great deal of time to unravel the Minister's speeches. Will he say whether that understanding is correct? If it is correct, we have no objection to the principle of deviation in the specific circumstances mentioned in the Bill.
The Minister admitted quite freely in Committee, on 16th December, in column 29, that he had a completely open mind on whether the degree of deviation should be 50 metres or some other distance, and he promised to look at it. A deviation of 50 metres is very large. As my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh North (Earl of Dalkeith) said in Committee, over a distance of one mile 50-metre deviation could mean as much as 50


acres. Has the experience of the Department shown a deviation of this size to be necessary? The Minister argued that roughly 50 metres is the normal width of a road, and he has taken this as as arbitrary figure.
If we write into the Bill too great a degree of deviation there will be a temptation upon the authority promoting the scheme, and on the Secretary of State, to allow for the maximum degree of deviation. This will affect a much larger number of people than would the smaller degree of deviation suggested by the Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said in Committee, a degree of deviation larger than absolutely necessary could give rise to unnecessary objections from people who at the end of the day might find that they were in no way affected. There might, therefore, be unnecessary objections in the earlier stages, the only result of which would be to delay the procedures. The earlier Clauses in the Bill are designed to speed up the procedure and so to speed up road building in Scotland. A too wide degree of deviation may result in a great many unnecessary objections, and the slowing down of procedure.
I accept that the 25-metre deviation proposed in the Amendment is an arbitrary one, but that is because we lack any good arguments from the Government as to why they feel that 50 metres is more sensible. From the point of view of the general principle of the degree of deviation and how it is applied and, secondly, in relation to what the degree of variation should be, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: There are two limbs to the argument here. The first, if I may say so with respect, results from a misunderstanding of the whole purpose of deviation orders. The second argument, that the figure should be 25 as opposed to 50, is related to what has been the experience of the Department in the last five years. I quite agree with the second argument, and this is why I gave an undertaking in Committee. The figures were not known to us. We had to go through the proposals—I think 15 of them—in the last five years to see how they would have been affected if we had had this rule.
Although the hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks with a discussion about the principle of deviation, the Amendment does not raise that principle. However, I must seek to explain it. It may be that there has been some misunderstanding to which I may have contributed—I am not above chastising myself occasionally—by failing to explain this, although why a Minister has to explain it five times and the hon. Gentleman cannot work it out himself, beats me. We had no reasoned arguments in Committee for a lesser distance. It was left to the Minister to find out what the lesser distance would be, and the Opposition are shooting in the dark in choosing the figure of 25 metres. No Amendment was moved in Committee relating to any specific figure.
We may want a variation in the line of the road for a number of reasons. One may be to meet the wishes of the owners of the property. The line of the road, for good engineering reasons, may go one way, but the property owner may point out how disadvantageous that would be and say if the road went another way a farm would be viable or a property less materially affected. So a deviation is sometimes, although not always, in the interest of the property owner. Where, in engineering terms, the line of the road does not matter, we should have the ability to vary the order to meet the wishes of the property owner, all things being equal otherwise. If we do not do this right, the whole procedure has to be gone over again. The purpose of deviation limits is to avoid repetitive procedures and expenditure by objectors who have to object not once, but twice, and sometimes perhaps even a third time.
The second purpose of variation orders is for engineering reasons. Having decided on the line of a road, we may later find, from bores carried out in consequence of the preparation of more detailed engineering designs, that there are unsuitable soil conditions, or it may be known at the time that there are mine workings. We therefore need a wide deviation for this purpose. Therefore, the line of the road at that point is a valid matter that can only be revealed later on, when much more thorough investigations have taken place.
A third point to consider is that a move would avoid the need to demolish a property which may be of historical


or other significance to the community. These are the reasons for a variation order to be brought in. The procedure is designed to allow an order to proceed, and yet not to allow the matter to be held up because of a variation which by unanimous agreement it may be desirable to carry out. This is to avoid the danger of highway authorities losing three or possibly six months progress because of delay in a simple matter involving statutory procedures.
I have said that about 15 variation orders have been made in the last five years and I should like the House to see this matter in perspective. Out of these variation orders, three have involved deviations of less than 50 metres. The Bill does not allow deviation of above 50 metres. If one looks at those three specific variation orders, two of them would have been knocked out by the Amendment because they were in excess of 25 metres. In the case of the third, there might have been a repetition of the objection already made as to the original line.
I suggest that an ideal variation order would involve something of substance, for example, an order concerning an important development on a special trunk road. I mentioned in Committee the Newbridge to Dechmont trunk road which was the subject of a variation order and there are others on the M.9 which are very important.

Mr. Brewis: Could the Minister say whether the deviations about which he is talking in two or three schemes took place in country areas or built-up areas?

Dr. Mabon: They were in country areas. In that case many of the circumstances become not less important, but more important. It is desirable that the principle of the use of variation orders should be preserved and that we should have a better limit than that which exists at present, rather than reduce the limit. It would mean that we would not have a fixed deviation limit.
4.45 p.m.
Some fears expressed about deviation limits are founded on a misunderstanding of the procedure. Each draft order as advertised would show the maximum-limits of deviation for that particular road and these could vary at different parts of the road. There might be provision

in a draft order for a deviation of ten, 20 or 50 metres for particular sections but there could be no deviation in excess of 50 metres. It does not follow that all deviations are within the compass of 50 metres, and it would be wrong to assume it. When, after consideration of objection, the order is made or confirmed, the approved limits of deviation could be less than those originally published, but could not be more.
In the light of these two points, which were misunderstood in Committee, the idea of the deviation limits does not seem quite as alarming as one would gather from reading the speeches in Committee. If concurrent proceedings, including compulsory acquisition, were being carried out, the scope for limits of deviation would be very much circumscribed because of the interaction of the various proposals.
It was suggested in Committee that a possible objector would be deprived of his right to object. But the maps accompanying the draft order would show the deviation limits so that anyone could see if he might be affected and lodge objections accordingly. A public inquiry would consider all objections both to the centre line and the deviation limits shown on the draft order.
I concede the point, about urban areas. In view of the changeover in road developments in the 'seventies as distinct from the 'sixties, it is important to recognise that we should not be frightened of the limits of deviation. Properly understood and properly used by the Department and by individuals, it is a way of getting ahead with road building at the same time as preserving good sense, not just accepting second-best lines of a road in order to buy six months' time or demolish properties that could be saved. Furthermore, we do not wish to inconvenience property owners because of having to rush ahead rather than to go through the procedures.
I feel that the change we are making is a good one. I feel that we should stick to the 50 metres as a correct figure in the context of large rural roads which are still being constructed. We are not merely talking of motorways. It should be remembered that a great deal of dual carriageway development takes place in the rural areas and it is right that we should preserve this procedure.

4.45 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: I am sympathetic to the suggestion that the distance of 50 metres might not be right; that it is, perhaps, too much. There is a distinction to be made between urban and rural areas. Obviously, the cases are somewhat different."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 16th December, 1969, c. 39–40.]
The Minister may remember uttering those words in Committee. I do not think he has adduced any new arguments to make him think otherwise. Perhaps he has been quietly brainwashed behind the scenes. The nub of the matter is the difference between urban and rural areas.
I suggest that this matter should be looked at again, when the Bill goes to another place. It may be that the Minister is correct in saying that we are shooting in the dark in suggesting 25 metres and I would not suggest that is necessarily the right figure. We could stipulate a figure of 5 metres in urban built-up areas and perhaps allow a figure of 50 metres in rural areas. There is a distinction to be drawn. However, a distance of 50 metres in built-up areas could have the most astonishing consequences on the lives of vast numbers of people and cause a good deal of unnecessary anxiety. It is surely unnecessary to have as big a deviation in a city——

Dr. Mabon: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree with the illustration I gave whereby there would be limits in the draft order of a smaller amount than 50 metres and that this would probably be the practice in urban rather than country areas? Conversely, it may be even more desirable that there should be more variations in the orders relating to cities since so many properties have an historic or other value.

Earl of Dalkeith: It is difficult to argue hypothetical cases, but I feel that it would cause unnecessary alarm and despondency among people who feel that they were being overridden in a roughshod manner by this type of legislation. I doubt whether a deviation would be anything like as great as the Minister suggests even in the sort of situation he envisaged. I suggest that he might look at the matter again.

Mr. George Willis: I think that I expressed some doubts about this in Committee, because I was

probably concentrating on the 50 metres point, because, certainly in an urban area, 50 metres would be rather too much. If it were possible to deviate a six-lane motorway through the Meadows, in Edinburgh, by 50 metres, which I understand is likely to be proposed, that would need to be looked at very seriously.
I was encouraged by what my hon. Friend said about the ability to put figures very much lower than that in the order itself. However, I neither accept nor follow his argument about historic buildings. When the line of a road is being made, surely one looks for historic buildings. They are not suddenly discovered under the surface of the ground. If it is not known that they exist when the line of the road is made, there must be something wrong with those making the road.

Mr. Brewis: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that surveys are normally made with the aid of aerial photographs?

Mr. Willis: That may be, but if it is intended to use aerial photographs to assist in the determination of the line of a road, which I take it would be the normal procedure, any historic buildings would become apparent before the line was made. That seems to be common sense.
As I say, I accept my hon. Friend's argument, and I am glad to hear that the limits can be smaller. However, I intervene because I want to know just what the subsection means. Does it mean 50 metres either sides of the centre-line? If it does, that represents 100 metres. Does it mean that a deviation can be made within a limit of 50 metres either side of the line—that is, within 100 metres? Is that the interpretation?
I am quite prepared to talk for three or four minutes if my hon. Friend wants a little time to puzzle out what his Bill means. It says:
The centre-line of any road referred to in the last foregoing subsection as constructed may deviate from the centre-line as indicated on the map referred to in that subsection within such limits of deviation, not exceeding 50 metres, as may be specified in the scheme or order.
I suggest that, if the limit of deviation is 50 metres on one side of the line and 50 on the other side of it, the limits of possible deviation are 100 metres.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I cannot follow this. My right


hon. Friend is saying that, at a given point, where there is power to deviate 50 metres either side of the line, it is possible to deviate the road both sides to make his 100 metres. However, surely it is only possible to deviate one side of it, which is 50 metres.

Mr. Willis: I am suggesting that the road can be deviated between 100 metres, 50 metres one side of the line and 50 metres the other. If the centre-line ran down the middle of the carpet in this Chamber, and it was possible to deviate to the red line opposite or to the red line on this side, the deviation limits would be between the two lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is a great logician and a mathematical student. I hope that he will apply his keen mind to the problem, because I am puzzled about it.

Mr. John Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend help me? I am anxious to understand his argument, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). Does my right hon. Friend take the view that it is possible to deviate 50 yards from the centre-line on both sides at the same time? If we can have an answer to that question from my right hon. Friend, I think that we shall see the position more clearly.

Mr. Willis: It is possible to deviate in only one direction at any one time. However, the limits within which the line can be deviated are 50 metres on one side of the centre-line and 50 metres on the other side——

Mr. Bence: But not at the same time.

Mr. Willis: It can either go one side or the other side.

Mr. Rankin: But not both sides.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair does not wish to go either side. Perhaps I might remind hon. Gentlemen that we are on Report. We are not in Committee.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been interrupted several times, and those interruptions have probably resulted in my having to make two or three speeches.
At the outset of my intervention, I made a very humble request. I am

always humble in my appeals to the Government. Having accepted the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in preference to those which I ventured to put forward in Committee, I hope that he will be prepared to look at the subsection again in the light of what I have now said.

Mr. Brewis: We have listened to a reasonable defence of the need to deviate a line in certain circumstances, and we do not contest that it is necessary to deviate when an order is made. Although 50 metres may not be unreasonable when one is dealing with land such as moorland or waste ground, I am a little worried about lines running through residential and other built-up areas.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that, when one is given a possible 50 metres in a Statute, there is a temptation to take the maximum when getting out an order. If one does that in a built-up area, hundreds of people have to attend a public inquiry and make their objections on a hypothetical chance that a deviation will be allowed which will go through their back gardens. If they do not attend the public inquiry and the order is confirmed, they have no redress thereafter.
There is a problem here, and I hope that the Minister will look at it again to see if he cannot reduce the limits of deviation to a more reasonable figure in respect of residential and other built-up areas.

Mr. Bence: I had not intended to intervene because I did not serve on the Standing Committee. However, I am a little worried by what the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) have said. We have had a hypothetical case of a deviation being made and limited to 25 metres in order to avoid destroying someone's property. I have a bungalow on the side of a narrow road. If the deviation limit was 25 metres, bang would go my bungalow. If it was 200 metres, it would dodge my bungalow by going round the back of it.
I should have to table an Amendment to set the limit at 150 metres, because that would miss my bungalow. A limit of 25 metres would go through it, of


100 metres would take my garden, and of 150 metres would miss me altogether. I do not know whether it is possible to hand in a manuscript Amendment. If it is permissible, I would ask leave to put one in to increase the limit to 150 metres.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) for that ingenious argument. We do not have a Clause which discerns between urban and rural areas. I have looked at the 15 variation orders in the last five years from the point of view of whether 50 is the right figure. At the moment, I think that it is. If we chose 25, we would do ourselves an injury, thinking in terms of rural areas.
If a local authority, oblivious to the situation which the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) described, asked the Secretary of State for a deviation in its draft order which involved a great number of people in the area, there would be such a massive inquiry that it would defeat the end which it sought to secure by the deviation system. That would be silly. Therefore, the in-built bias of the promoters would be to have as little deviation as possible in urban areas, thereby reducing the number of people who would attend the public inquiry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), whose support I value, made a point about historic buildings. Perhaps I did not put it very well. Of course, we have a list of historic buildings. However, if my right hon. Friend considers the New Town in Edinburgh and thinks back to the quinquennial review, I think that he will see the point of having a variation for buildings of architectural merit. It is one of four or five reasons for the variation procedure. In the rural areas it seems obvious. In the urban areas it is difficult.
5.0 p.m.
We are anxious to secure the best operation of the Statute, and we will certainly keep a very close eye on the matter. However, it would be a mistake to reduce the figure below the 50 metres that we suggest. It would also be a terrible mistake if we abandoned the variation procedure. I think that we are all agreed on that.
We may not be agreed on the figure, but I suggest that we should not accept 25 metres. We should not reduce it below 50 metres. We will see how the matter progresses. If it is a mistake we can rectify it at a later stage. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is right that 50 metres is too little and that we should have a larger figure, we must also look at that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was worried, as the debate proceeded, that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) would add still further to our confusion. However, I think that we have reached a conclusion on the matter. If we know that this degree of deviation is to be specified from the beginning and, having been specified, cannot be increased at any time, that will colour whether we think it should be a high or a low degree of deviation.
As I listened to the Minister I began to think that we should consider increasing this degree of deviation and introduce a wider element into it. What worried me most was that the Minister said that in three out of the 15 schemes he had examined the deviation was less than 50 metres and that therefore 50 metres would be applicable. But what about the other 12? I may be introducing a fresh element. Was the indication in the other 12 schemes that the degree of deviation was more than 50 metres? I wonder why the figure of 50 metres was accepted in the first place.
While I have no intention of pressing the Amendment because I accept the need for deviation, I am not entirely satisfied that 50 metres is the right figure. Therefore, I hope that, even in the later stages of the Bill, the Minister will consider whether the figure is right.
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 8, after 'submitted', insert:
'and any relevant map or plan'.
This is a drafting Amendment, dealing with a minor ambiguity in the Bill, which was mentioned in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). I promised to


consider whether we should make an Amendment and I propose this one.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I do not remember this discussion in Committee, but I accept from the Minister that I had a hand in it. The Amendment refers to
any relevant map or plan".
However, subsection (2) refers only to a map. There was an Amendment down, which was not selected, to add "plan" to bring subsection (2) into line with the amended subsection (4). Can the Minister explain that? It seems that if there is reference to "relevant map or plan" in subsection (4), it would be helpful to have a corresponding reference in subsection (2).

Dr. Dickson Mabon: That raises a fresh point which I had better look at. In Committee, we were comparing paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, which amends the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, and paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, which amends the Special Roads Act, 1949. The hon. and learned Member pointed out that we had to have the same period of six weeks for inspection and lodging of objections where these objections applied to plans as well as to schemes and to orders. That is why I promised to introduce words such as,
and any relevant map or plan.
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the explanation. The Amendment seeks to tidy up a minor discrepancy.
As for the other point, I think that I had better look at it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO CON- TRIBUTE TO MAKING UP FOOTWAYS ON PUBLIC STREETS.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 32, leave out from 'any' to end of Clause and insert:
'such street works as are referred to in any of the following enactments, that is to say—

(a) sections 133 to 135 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892 (making up of private streets and the footways thereof),

(b) sections 141 and 142 of the said Act of 1892 (construction and making up of footways of streets),
(c) sections 150 and 151 of the said Act of 1892 (construction of new streets),
(d) section 39 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 (making up of private streets and footways in special scavenging districts),
(e) section 16 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1903 (construction of footways of private streets),

or in any provision in any local enactment having the like effect as any of the aforesaid enactments.
(2) The Local Government (Street Works) (Scotland) Act 1956 is hereby repealed.
I suggest that, for the convenience of the House, with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 49, to Schedule 2, in page 30, line 45, column 3, Schedule 2, leave out 'Section 1(1)(b)' and insert 'The whole Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is the wish of the House.

Dr. Mabon: These Amendments together fulfil the undertaking which I gave on behalf of the Government in Committee in columns 103–105 to table an Amendment on Report which would give local authorities complete discretion to contribute the whole or part of the costs borne by frontagers in carrying out private street works.
Hon. Members will recall that in Committee the discussion was on Opposition Amendments, but the principle embodied in the present Amendments was supported vigorously on both sides and the Government naturally, being reasonable, bow to the general will of the Committee. The local authorities favour this change, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Monro: I thank the Minister of State for viewing this favourably and implementing the points that were argued so strongly from both sides in Committee. I am glad that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament local authorities, particular the large and small burghs, will be able to make up private streets and arrange between themselves and the frontagers about payment. Many local authorities already have enlightened instalment schemes for this kind of thing. I see nothing but good coming from the Amendment.

Mr. Wylie: We are grateful to the Minister of State for acceding to our


suggestions on this matter. The widening of local authorities' discretion is commendable and is widely accepted.
However, I have one minor question on the Amendment. Is it necessary to have subsection (2)? Would it not have been easier to put the repeal provision in the repeal schedule?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I will look into that matter. We might correct it. It is a drafting point, but I will look at it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

PROVISION OF FENCES ETC. TO SAFEGUARD PERSONS USING HIGHWAY

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 7, after 'highway,' insert 'on the footpath'.
This is a drafting Amendment to make clear that where a highway authority considers that a footpath giving direct access to a highway may cause danger it will have power to erect a barrier or fence on the footpath at or near the point of access to the road. It is advisable to make this clear since the footpath would not normally be the property of the highway authority. Hon. Members will recall that powers to erect a barrier or fence within the highway near a footpath would be conferred by paragraph (a) or (c) of Clause 5(1).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

ALTERATION OF LEVELS OF HIGHWAYS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 9—

Earl of Dalkeith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since there was no discussion at all in Committee on the point about compensation dealt with in Amendment No. 10, would it be possible to discuss Amendment No. 10 with No. 9, as the two are linked?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that that is not possible. The selection of Amendments has already been made by Mr. Speaker, and it cannot be altered now.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 17, at end insert:
Provided that before carrying out works under this section which would materially alter the level of the highway, the highway authority shall consult the local authority in whose area the land is situated and any person affected thereby.
In Committee on 20th January, the Under-Secretary of State said that he was willing to consider a similar Amendment which we had moved on this point. To be fair, he did not hold out any great hopes, he said, of being able to accept our Amendment or to bring forward a similar one. When we saw that the Government had not tabled such an Amendment, we did so.
There is an important difference, however, between this Amendment and the earlier one. In Committee, we stipulated an alteration of more than two metres, but after hearing the arguments we thought it better in this Amendment to stipulate only "material" alteration to the highway. This makes the Amendment more sensible.
Where the level of a highway is raised or lowered, we feel strongly that people with adjoining property can be greatly affected. Not only private people but the local authority is entitled to know what is going on and to be consulted. Therefore, the Amendment provides that where the level is to be materially altered, the highway authority shall consult the local authority or any other person affected.
We have put in the general word "materially" because, as the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) rightly said in Committee, a change in level of only a few inches can be a material alteration. We also looked for the support of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) who, when his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West said that, although people could be materially affected by a very small movement, he did not think this was necessary, described that utterance as "Fascist nonsense". I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be here to support me today, but perhaps he will return later.
This is a genuine point which affects ordinary people a good deal. In any cases of big alterations, the highway authority will probably consult, but we want to


ensure that an obligation is laid on it to consult in every case. It was to protect those affected, and the local authority concerned, that we put down the Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: I support my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). We have already heard about the bungalow of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). In that case, I should have thought, the highway authority could build up the road in front of his house, so that he could not see out of his windows. It would be only elementary courtesy to consult him beforehand. I would go further and suggest that he be compensated for the loss of value of his house, since it could be rendered virtually worthless in that way. Yet he would get compensation only if the road builders trampled on his daffodils: he would get nothing for loss of value.

Mr. James Dempsey: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any highway authority which has built up a road higher than a house?

Earl of Dalkeith: We nearly had a very good example of that in the Edinburgh ring road proposals. That would have been a great big thing on stilts which could have had an appalling effect on the value of neighbouring residential property. One can think of hundreds of such examples.
I am not happy that Amendment No. 9 even goes far enough or that consultation in itself is enough. As Amendment No. 10 is not called, we cannot discuss it, although there was not one syllable of discussion on this point in Committee.

Mr. Bence: I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), but I would be very surprised if any local authority planned or undertook road construction which meant raising the level without consulting the local authorities concerned.
Only a few weeks ago, a number of us from my village attended a meeting called by the Ministry of Transport, in a nearby borough, to hear the plans for the motorway which will pass around our territory. People were circulated and invited to

attend to hear the proposals. Members of the borough, the rural and the county councils were there. When ringroads are constructed in big cities like Edinburgh or Glasgow, light can be obscured, as has happened in London and Glasgow. Many individuals suffer considerable loss of amenity in this way.
I was not on the Committee, but I am certain that my hon. Friend can assure us that none of these things will be done except through consultation witth the local authorities and that individual citizens will receive the utmost protection to ensure that their amenity will not be destroyed without ample compensation.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) argued that the Amendment was not necessary because a sensible highway authority would normally exercise the courtesy of consulting the local authority affected by its road alteration proposals. I dare say that that is so, but one can envisage circumstances when that consultation might not take place. If the hon. Gentleman is right in believing that, in any event, a highway authority will always consult the local authority, he can have no objection to including our proposal in the Bill, since no obligation would be involved to do more than is done already.
But the Amendment goes further than that. I am concerned more with the individual than with the local authority. I am not certain that the courtesy of consultation will always extend from the highway authority through the local authority to the individual. A case came to my notice some time ago of a man whose property was affected by a road alteration proposal but who knew nothing about it until a steamroller appeared outside his house. There should be a requirement to consult so that those affected may at least feel that they are being courteously treated by being consulted so that, if necessary, they can take action.
My noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) referred to damage caused to daffodils and said that the Bill would enable compensation to be received. But other problems can arise. If the level of a highway is to be raised, even marginally, that alteration can throw


out the whole approach to one's house from the roadway. People may find difficulty in driving their cars from their garages along a short driveway to the main road. I can think of several houses where the raising of the adjoining roads by one foot or so would make it difficult for the occupants to drive in and out of their garages, particularly in wintry conditions when a slight inclination might make their path almost impassable.
There are considerations of this kind to which highway authorities should pay attention, and the individual should be enabled to raise matters if he thinks that he will be adversely affected. He will not have that opportunity unless this process of consultation is provided, and for this reason I strongly support the Amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: The most important person involved in all this is the individual. He is far more important than the local council or highway authority. I agree with what has been said about the difficulties that arise when the height of a road is altered, but we must not forget another problem that frequently occurs; namely, the seepage from drainage.
While I appreciate the inconvenience that may be caused to people when the height of a road is altered, bad drainage can result from road alterations. We have had cases of water seeping into occupiers' gardens and even into their homes. Once this happens one is faced with the old battle of who is responsible, the highway or local authority or the person affected.
We must never forget that to many people their home is their castle. For this reason they should be consulted, even if only to ensure that they may be adequately represented to protect their interests should the need arise. While highway authorities are expected to consult, there have been occasions when they have not consulted, and difficulties have arisen.
I recall a case when we could afford to raise not the whole road but only part of it. This meant that when floods came larger vehicles could pass through the lower part but smaller vehicles could not, and they had to keep to the higher

part of the road. Hon. Members will appreciate the difficulties that arose. Not only should adequate consultation occur, but technical advice should be made available by the authority and provision made for legal expenses to be met by that authority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: I am endeavouring to explain how important consultations are from the individual's point of view.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Amendment does not deal with consultation with individuals. It refers to consultations between the highway authority and the local authority.

Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order. With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I point out that the Amendment refers to consultation between the highway authority and
… the local authority in whose area the land is situated and any person affected thereby
which surely means that the individual is very much affected by all this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. I misread the last few words of the Amendment, and I therefore apologise to the House in general and to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) in particular.

Mr. Dempsey: From my experience of these matters, I have always felt that the individual, be he the owner-occupier or the tenant, is the most important person concerned when alterations of this kind are proposed. It is vital for us to give him the fullest possible protection, and I hope that the Minister will adequately cover this point.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I will be tempted to deal with only some of the comments made by the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) and other hon. Members because I do not propose to argue about compensation. If the alteration of a level affects an individual property so that remedial works are necessary, the highway authority would normally conduct negotiations with the owner. We are not discussing compensation at this point but simply whether or not there is a process of consultation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) that in most cases there is no need for the first part of the Amendment. Indeed, the local authority associations are convinced of this and say that the first part of the Amendment would introduce an unnecessary elaboration into what they regard as a reasonably simple procedure.
At present the Secretary of State is a highway authority, as is the county council. The county councils are made up of landward areas and burghal members. If the Secretary of State engages a county council as his agent, the burghal members would naturally be involved. As for the officials, county surveyors are in close touch with burgh surveyors. Having consulted the county councils principally involved and the local authority associations, we have concluded that the first part of the Amendment is not necessary. Indeed, it would only make life more difficult.
5.30 p.m.
I was not in the Committee at the time, but I think the original figure was 2 metres. It has been altered in this Amendment to "materially". I think hon. Members would agree that "materially" is open to a great deal of ambiguity. In consulting an individual, what would be regarded as material? If the authority was carrying out only minor regrading of a surface which might be below 2 metres, would that be material? The Amendment is not desirable in that regard.
Of course it is not the intention that there should be no consultation with individuals, and I accept that there are circumstances in which an individual could be affected and consultation might be desirable. I am prepared to look at this matter again, but I am not prepared to recommend incorporation of this Amendment because consultation between local authorities is not necessary. It is rather like saying that we are consulting each other, and "materially" is thus ineffective.

Mr. Wylie: I must accept responsibility for using the word "materially". Surely a material alteration is any alteration to which the de minimis rule does not apply? It must be any alteration other than a very minimal one.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I should like to look at this matter again because I concede that there could be circumstances in which it could be argued that the material change was very small, but if a change were small and yet caused consequential flooding in the home or the property of the person concerned, that would hardly de de minimis, even if it were merely a change in the camber and the change in the road level was very small. This is a point which I shall look at, but I do not want this Amendment to be pressed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the circumstances I shall be as gracious as possible to the Minister of State. I do not intend to get involved in de minimis rules. My approach to this matter is practical, as was the approach made by the hon. Members for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). They were concerned about the ordinary householder and how he could be affected.
The Minister of State has said that if we put in an Amendment of this sort it would make life more difficult for local authorities; but if it is something which they do already I cannot see that it would cause difficulty. The Minister says that they are consulted. We are generous in these matters and would not want to foist something on them which is not genuinely wanted.
As to the question of individuals being affected by an alteration in the road level, I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to look at the point again. In Committee his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary admitted that there was a general point of principle. This afternoon we have gone a stage further and the Minister of State has indicated in practical terms that it might be possible to write something into the Bill which would cover the point.
This debate and the debate we had in Committee have been worth while. In this House it is our duty to stand up for the rights of the individual, and the speeches which have been made from this side of the House have been thoroughly justified. We thank the Minister of State for agreeing to look at this again.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

POWER TO DIVERT WATERS WHEN CONSTRUCTING OR IMPROVING HIGHWAY

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 31, at end insert
and any other body acting under statutory powers which, in the opinion of the highway authority, may be affected by the works'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments No. 12 and No. 46.

Dr. Mabon: These three Amendments have been put down in fulfilment of a Government undertaking in Committee on 20th January, as reported at c. 144 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, to provide for consultation before diversion of other work on water courses is carried out. An Opposition Amendment, which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) confessed was defective, was withdrawn. In this happy state of connubial bliss, I am happy to accept the sense of that Amendment.
The addition to subsection (3) of Clause 7 will require the highway authority to consult any statutory body which it thinks will be affected. This would cover such bodies as fishery boards, dock and harbour authorities, rail and canal authorities, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and so on. The two new subsections (4) and (5) which are to be inserted in Clause 7 are modelled on the corresponding provisions in Clause 10(3) and (4). Subsection (4) will provide that a highway authority before carrying out work shall notify the owner and occupier and give 28 days' notice for objection. Subsection (5) will provide that a highway authority which receives objections from an owner or occupier shall refer the matter to the Secretary of State, who may consent to the works, with or without conditions, or may refuse consent.
The Amendment to Clause 37 is consequential on the above Amendments and also refers to the similar provisions in Clause 10. Clause 37—dealing with powers of entry—allows authorised persons to enter on the land for the purpose of carrying out certain works or surveys after giving seven days' notice to the

occupier. The Amendment ensures that under Clauses 9 and 10 there is no entry before the end of the 28 days' objection period.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thank the Minister of State for accepting the principle of the Amendments which we put forward in Committee. We admitted that they were not completely correct. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting the principle. This shows the value of the constructive work which we on this side of the House did in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 12, in line 31, at end insert—
(4) Before carrying out any works under this section the highway authority shall serve notice of their intention on the owners and the occupier of the land concerned together with a description of the proposed works and of the right to object thereto within 28 days after the service of the notice.
(5) Where the highway authority is a local authority and within the said period of 28 days the owner or the occupier objects to the proposed works, and that objection is not withdrawn, the local highway authority shall not proceed to execute the works without consent aftermentioned but may refer the matter for the determination of the Secretary of State who may grant consent to the proposed works either unconditionally or subject to such terms and conditions as he thinks just, or who may withhold his consent, and the decision of the Secretary of State on this matter shall be final.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 10

DRAINAGE OF HIGHWAYS

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 29, leave out from "land" to "suffers" in line 30.
Again, a generous Government honour their undertaking given in Committee. We are complimenting ourselves for what was done in Committee, I understand. This Amendment fulfills a Government undertaking to consider whether the phrase
'not being waste land or a common
was necessary.
The wording of Clause 10(5) was modelled on the comparable English provision in Section 103(3) of the Highways Act, 1959, which barred the owner or occupier of waste land or a common from receiving compensation for damage done


by drainage works. The object was to exclude claims which in the nature of things are likely to be abortive. Waste land by its nature is worthless, and compensation for damage therefore should not arise. In the case of a common, ownership might be very difficult to establish, and a claim would therefore be dubious.
On consideration, however, it appears to be unnecessary in the Bill to refer to waste and common land. For waste land there is no need to bar claims for compensation. If the land is really worthless and no compensation therefore payable, that will emerge in considering the claim. As to common land, it is still unlikely that a single owner will be found but common land could be the responsibility of someone, for example, a community, for upkeep and maintenance, and it seems more equitable that these persons should be able to claim for any damage caused by drainage works. If the words proposed to be omitted are retained in the Bill it is just possible that they may exclude a legitimate claim for compensation. If they are omitted they are unlikely to open the way to a large number of unjustified claims.

Mr. Wylie: I thank the Minister of State for promoting this Amendment. I think it is in precisely the same terms as the Amendment which we moved in Committee. While we are congratulating ourselves on these matters, may I say how very much my hon. Friends appreciated the contributions made by the UnderSecretary in Committee and his approach to drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

STOPPING UP OF ACCESS FROM HIGHWAY TO PREMISES CAUSING DANGER TO TRAFFIC

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 8, line 34, at end insert 'on foot'.
This is another drafting Amendment arising from discussion in Committee. I join with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) in saying how very indebted we are to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who took my place in the Committee. He agreed to look at the drafting.
The Amendment makes clear that Clause 13 does not empower a highway authority to close a public right of way for pedestrians. As the Under-Secretary explained, the Clause is aimed at the prevention of access by vehicles, but the Clause in terms gives powers to shut off both vehicular and pedestrian accesses. The effect of the Amendment is to make quite clear that the reference to a public right of way is to a pedestrian right of way and not to a right of way for vehicles, which would be a public road and not a private access.

Mr. Brewis: The expression "on foot" seems a little odd in a Statute. I suppose that riding a horse, for example, would be all right. Should not the expression be "on hoof" in that case? Do we really want to keep out people who are riding bicycles? Is the Minister sure that that is really what he intends?

Dr. Mabon: One should never weary in doing good. I shall certainly look at this matter. I do not think that there was any intention in the minds of the critics or my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to have vehicles there, even bicycles or horses. I think that the idea was to keep the right of way for pedestrians. I do not know whether the word "pedestrian" is better than the phrase "on foot".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

VESTING OF SOLUM OF STOPPED UP ROAD

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 15, with which I understand it is the desire of the House to discuss Government Amendment No. 16.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 10, line 18 after 'Act', insert:
'or any other enactment and has ceased to be used as a road,'.
The Amendments fulfil a Government undertaking in Committee on 22nd January to reconsider the Clause and, if necessary, table an Amendment. Amendment No. 15 does two things. First, it extends the Clause to apply to the solum of roads closed up under other enactments, such as Section 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act,


1945, Section 46 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, Section 28 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, Sections 3 and 14 of the Special Roads Act, 1949, and Section 90 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1969.
The point was raised on behalf of Edinburgh Corporation quite late in the proceedings on the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act last year in relation to Section 46 of the 1947 Act, when it was agreed that we would give consideration to it in the present Bill. Edinburgh Corporation has rightly mentioned the point again. It seems to us desirable to resolve any difficulties which may arise in relation to any road closure.
The other thing the Amendment does is to confine the Clause to cases where the road has ceased to be used as a road. As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State explained in Committee, a road could be stopped up, for example, by a fence or line of posts across one end while the road remained in use as an access to buildings or for parking. In such a case it would be inequitable to place the liability for maintenance on the adjoining proprietor. Under the Amendment, the Clause will operate only when the road ceases to be used as such.
Amendment No. 16 is designed to safeguard the claim of those having a title to the solution. They will probably be the adjoining owners, or the highway authority if it had acquired the land for the road.
The proposal in the Clause as drafted enabling a highway authority to claim the solum was the subject of an Opposition Amendment to remove what was described as an arbitrary power to claim land even though another person had the title. Under the Amendment, anyone with a title to the solum would have first claim. Failing title or claim, the solum would revert to the adjoining owners. The provision for settlement of disputes about ownership by the sheriff would remain.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Monro: I thank the Minister of State again for meeting an Amendment we moved in Committee. There certainly was an arbitrary power for the highway authority to take over the solum,

and while this may not be a provision that is used frequently, it is absolutely right to have it clarified, and clarified on the side of the adjoining proprietor, who may have the title.

Mr. George Lawson: I notice that my hon. Friend is falling over backwards to meet hon. Members opposite. I did not serve on the Committee, but I wonder whether this might not be an occasion when he is going too far.
Roads could be stopped up that provide excellent public rights of way. They may very well have been in use for generations. What kind of protection is there for the other intests in such circumstances? If a roadway is stopped up because another highway has been built in its vicinity, and the highway authority is not taking over any liability to maintain or in any way keep open the old route, does it follow that under the Amendment the adjoining proprietors, who may have had no rights to the road, can simply take it over, close it up and make it part of their land? Are the interests of the other people in the area also protected?

Dr. Mabon: If there were arguments along the lines of what my hon. Friend says, and if there is justice in his claim about a road being a public right of way at some time, that is a matter to be argued before the sheriff. What my hon. Friend would argue if he represented the persons concerned would be that the title to the solum really lay with the community. Exactly in what sense that would be would have to be buttressed at the time by the various arguments used in that context. There is a society in Scotland which my hon. Friend has championed that will willingly help any persons concerned who want to make such a claim.
I imagine that such a dispute would have to go before the sheriff. In the absence of a community argument, surely it is fair and proper that anyone with title to the solum should have first claim. If it does not go to a person with such a claim, it reverts to the adjoining owners.

Mr. Bence: I would like clarification, because there are many cases throughout the country where the path of a road has been changed and the old part of the road is used as a lay-by for cars. Do


I understand from what has just been said that it is now possible for the owner of the land adjacent to the old piece of road to claim it, or does it remain open for the use of road users as a lay-by?

Mr. Dempsey: I, too, would like some clarification. I have in mind a certain highway which I believe may have prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) to raise the matter. This highway is in the Bothwell and Motherwell Divisions, but is where I live. A new road was opened some years ago, and the highway in question, which still has a 22-foot carriageway, was removed from the list of highways, but it is still used by hundreds of people who walk there during their leisure time.
The ruling of my hon. Friend the Minister of State seems to suggest that this admirable walk for the general public could be taken over by the owners of land on either side, who could claim a right to the solum and stop its use by people in the area. I would be very much disturbed if that were the intention of the Bill or any Amendment made to it. There are several similar instances. The highway I have mentioned is one where I walk every weekend, as do hundreds of other people. The biggest part of it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell. It would be a dreadful mistake if we introduced legislation that enabled adjoining land owners to claim the highway, put up barriers and deprive the general public of such a pleasant walk in a very nice part of mid-Lanarkshire.
Therefore, may I have an assurance that there are no prospects of adjoining land owners who have the right to the solum taking advantage of powers in the Bill to block off that road for their own exclusive use, to the detriment of the general public.

Mr. Wylie: Surely questions of right of way and ownership of the solum are two entirely different things and hon. Gentlemen who express doubts on this are confusing these two things.

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Lawson: I was trying to ask a question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Asking a question is still speaking. The hon. Gentleman could always interject in the Minister's speech.

Mr. William Hannan: Could I anticipate my hon. Friend's question? Surely where a road is stopped up under this Act it will revert to the owners unless the highway authority claims it. Let us assume that happens and the land goes to the adjoining land owners. If in future the highway authority found that plans made it desirable for a path to be reopened, would not that mean that it would have to regain ownership of the land, to repurchase it at public cost? If it was known that there would be no need for the land for some years, could not some temporary arrangement be reached for the land to be given to the adjoining land owners without its being disposed of by purchase? Would the land owners be offered a form of purchase, or is it just because the land has become redundant that it goes to the landowners for nothing?

Mr. Brewis: The problem is that the community has no right of possession in the solum of the highway. The right is solely to pass and repass on the highway. When the highway is stopped up the right of passage is maintained. The ownership of the solum does not matter.

Earl of Dalkeith: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) triggered me off when he expressed nervousness that someone might be getting something for nothing out of this arrangement. I would mention that the highway he talked about probably belonged to a land owner, was probably built by him many years ago and taken from him by the highway authority for nothing. I would have thought it a fair arrangement if it is now to be handed back. I know of a case where this has happened, in Selkirkshire, where a road will now become the property of the Forestry Commission. There may be a number of cases in Scotland where the commission will be taking over roads of this kind. In such cases there is a great deal of doubt, and it is rather a pity that the road is not being kept by the county council, which naturally wants to be relieved of the rate burden of looking after it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I must confess that I feel very much like Wellington, who, reviewing the reinforcements from England during the Peninsula War is alleged to have said:
I don't know what the French think about them, but by God they frighten me.
These Amendments are frightening me to the extent that there seems to be a lot more misunderstanding about this and stronger feeling than I had anticipated. May I clarify a number of points. It was the practice in the last century—and here we are concerned with Section 43 of the Roads & Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878—that the solum reverted to the adjoining owners unless the highway authority had paid for the land. At that time it was most unusual for a highway authority to buy land. Today the Secretary of State purchases such land. When he is involved in these developments for various roads which are sometimes stopped up he still ends up being the owner of the land. In that case there is no argument about it, the ownership is clearly in the hands of the Secretary of State. Similarly in the case of highway authorities. It is the practice to purchase land when such works are carried out. Again the bulk of land remains in public possession.
Under the old system there were different local enactments for stopping up roads. For example in Edinburgh and also in Dundee, Paisley and Rutherglen the solum vested in the town council unless someone else claimed it. That was how the measure was phrased before. In Glasgow it may go to the adjoining owner or to the Corporation, and in Greenock I am told it always went to the adjoining owners. In Aberdeen there was no provision at all so we are starting off from every conceivable circumstance and trying to sort out a very complicated position.
The first Amendment is sensible in that it makes the point that it would be inequitable to place the liability for maintenance on adjoining proprietors. That is a fair point and we promised to deal with it. On the second Amendment the position is that anyone with a title to the solum would have to claim it, otherwise it would revert to the adjoining owners. Since I have explained that in most cases it would be the Secretary of State and the highway authority it would only be in a minority of cases that anyone could make such a claim.
I take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) that the argument about claim of ownership is rather different from public right of way on land. It does not mean that the ownership of the actual way is in public hands, it means that the right of way is. If it has been established to have been so for 40 years then it can be preserved. Here we are confined to the question of ownership and disposal of ownership in the case of stopping up roads. In no way does the Amendment or the preceding version of the Bill, or the Amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee detract from the argument about public right of way.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about a public right of way for vehicles or for people on foot? If someone breaks their back axle by going over one of these roads is the person who has the solum responsible for the damage?

Dr. Mabon: I have confined myself, and I am advised, strangely enough that I am right, to public rights of way meaning public rights of way on foot, not for horses, bicycles or vehicles.

Mr. Lawson: May I clarify this. Once a road becomes disused and is almost equivalent to a long walk, not leading from one point to another, merely a place that people like to wander along, would the public still have a right to have a "dander" along this area?

Dr. Mabon: I never thought that this little Amendment would lead to so much trouble. A "dander" is a "Bonner" in Motherwell. We are talking here about the title to the solum, not whether a person has the right to walk along a road.
It may be the case that the person claiming original title, or the adjoining owners to whom it will revert in the absence of it being claimed by someone else or being owned by the highway authority, will not wish to exercise any of the prerogatives of ownership in the solum, in which case "danders" will be in order, since nothing will be done. But if the person concerned wanted to do something he would be entitled to do it. He could also dispose of the road because it would no longer be a road. By the very circumstance of the Clause


we are discussing, the road will cease to be a road.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: Here is an area which is freely accessible and can be used to great advantage but which under this Measure can be stopped up at the wish of the proprietor.

Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend has become involved in an argument of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is after the closure of the road and the stopping up, so to speak, that these matters arise and not the other way around. In view of the fact that there has been all this heat engendered and little light on my part being shed on the matter, I undertake, if these Amendments are made now, to look into the matter closely and will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell.

Mr. Dempsey: Where a highway has been removed from the list of highways but is still usable as a tarmacadam surface, can the adjoining owners under this legislation block it off, thus preventing the general public from walking on that highway during their leisure hours?

Dr. Mabon: If the House will make these Amendments, I will look into this and give a precise answer later.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 16, in page 10, line 19, leave out:
'unless claimed by the highway authority'
and insert:
'subject to any prior claim of any person by reason of title '.—(Dr. Mabon.)

Clause 17

DAMAGE TO ROADS

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 10, line 30, after 'tree', insert 'traffic sign, milestone'.
Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendments No. 20, 21 and 22.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Courlay): That would be convenient.

Dr. Mabon: These Amendments fulfil the Government undertaking in Committee on 22nd January, reported in columns 168 and 170, to table Amendments on Report to cover damage to,

or interference with traffic signs. Opposition Amendments with the same intention were withdrawn on that assurance.
The Opposition Amendments referred to "road sign" as well as "traffic sign". This is unnecessary since the definition of traffic sign in the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, covers all signs on roads. On the other hand, the comparable English provision contained in Section 117(2)(c) of the Highways Act, 1959, also refers to milestones, and it is desirable to be consistent. The Amendments in lines 30 and 35, therefore, have the effect of making it an offence to damage or deface a traffic sign or milestone.
The other Amendment in line 35 makes it an offence to interfere with a traffic sign, and so on, as distinct from damaging it. Possible examples are altering the position of a direction post or removing masks from traffic lights which are not in operation.
The fourth Amendment—No. 22—defines traffic signs in terms of the Road Traffic Regulation Act.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Again, we are very glad to be able to thank the Government for accepting the spirit of the Amendments we moved during the Committee stage. One specific point I should like to raise is whether this Amendment, as now drafted, covers, as we are asking in Committee, all forms of what might be generally described as road furniture. One matter which I must confess did not come to my mind at Committee stage but has been brought to my notice since, is cats eyes. Are they covered under this Amendment? It is not unknown for children to remove them from the road and play bowls with them. This has happened on occasions. Are cats eyes in the road or on the road, or do they come under a form of sign? This would be something interfering with road safety, and if we can get a clarification on this point it will reassure me completely on the matters which we raised in Committee.

Earl of Dalkeith: I do not want to appear ungracious by being critical after the Government have been so responsive over this Amendment. But I should like to suggest that we should just read through this particular phraseology as it will be after it has been amended in


accordance with Amendment No. 17. It will read as follows:
If a person, without lawful authority or excuse …
(b) paints or otherwise inscribes or affixes upon the surface of a road or upon any tree, traffic sign, milestone, structure or works on or in any road, any picture, letter, sign or other mark …".
How on earth can we have a tree on or in any road? Why cannot we use the simple phrase "or by the side of the road" as is the case in (d). That would seem to me to meet the point much more satisfactorily. It is ludicrous to think that we are going to find all these things on or in a road. They will be by the side of the road.
I am sorry that we were galloping through the Bill at Committee stage so fast that I could not spot these defects. They are only now coming to light. Could the hon. Gentleman undertake to look——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Amendment before the House.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In that case, it may be that I need not answer what the noble Lord has said. The noble Lord is making matters more difficult. I should not have thought that to use the words "by the side of the road" was a good idea, because the words imply that it is not on the road or in the road, in which case how can it be an offence?
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) must have had a wicked boyhood, because I did not know that you could play bowls with cats eyes. I hope that his remarks are not reported in the newspapers, because one would not want to direct attention of children to this wicked practice.
The definition in Section 54 (1) of the 1967 Act is
In this Act 'traffic sign' means any object or device, whether fixed or portable, for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description specified by regulations made by the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly or authorised by the appropriate Minister, and any line or mark on a road for so conveying such warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions.
So cats eyes are in.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Brewis: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 10, line 32, leave out paragraph (c).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest we also discuss Amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 32, leave out '30 metres from the middle' and insert '5 metres from the edge'.

Mr. Brewis: We want it to be quite clear what is being laid down and what the Government have in mind on these offences. If we are dealing with a motorway, 30 metres from the centre of the road may well be only just on the verge or even on the tarmac which may well be damaged by a fire. The suggestion contained in Amendment No. 19 which provides for a distance of "5 metres from the edge" of the road is much the better solution.
The main difficulty is that with nearly all roads 30 metres would be well into the field where it may well be desirable for people to burn hedge clippings, branches of trees and other rubbish.
It seems unlikely that any sparks from such a fire would damage the road surface. I know of no occasion when that has happened. If the wind is in the wrong direction and smoke blows across the road, it may well result in an accirent and can be extremely dangerous, but that is not causing damage, at least directly, to the surface of the road, although, of course, it may cause indirect damage. I move the Amendment in order to obtain more explanation as to what is meant by these criminal offences we are creating.

Earl of Dalkeith: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and speak particularly in the context of Amendment No. 19, which stands in my name. I believe that the words I suggest there would be much clearer to people who have to interpret our legislation. I hope that the Minister of State will forgive me if I fire a barrage of questions at him.
How did he arrive at the figure of 30 metres rather than five or ten, for example? Why did he choose to take the measurement from the centre instead of the edge of the road? In a later Clause, there is reference to the edge of the road or the edge of a made-up carriageway, so presumably there is no


difficulty about legal definition. Surely, if a person wants to light a fire near a road, it is far more dangerous if he has to walk to the middle of the road and pace out 30 metres than if, starting at the edge of the road, he paces out five metres.
I was in my constituency during the weekend and went round a part of it where people have gardens. I calculated that, under this provision, none of these people would be able to burn leaves in their gardens. That would be a pity—indeed, ludicrous. But it would be even more foolish if my constituents had to walk to the middle of the road to measure out where they could burn leaves, whether they were the right distance away to do so. What sort of damage does the hon. Gentleman envisage by someone lighting a fire, say, 20 metres from the centre of a road? Would it burn a hole in the road? What does he expect to happen? This is a peculiar provision.
Surely the important thing here, as my hon. Friend mentioned, is to try to prevent people who start fires near the road from blinding motorists by covering the road with smoke. If that is the intention of the subsection, would it not be more sensible to have a provision laying down that one must not light a fire upwind of a road within a certain distance? I do not think that that point is made in the provision as it stands.
Let us take ourselves out of the town and into the countryside and think of the hedges which run alongside roads throughout the country. These hedges have been kept clipped and trimmed and someone has to burn up the clippings. It is not going to be easy to cart those clippings into the middle of a field to burn them. It is more convenient to burn them quite close to the road. This provision will make complications in the countryside. Will Clause 17(d) prohibit the cutting of a hedge even if the hedge does not belong to the highway authority? Someone else may own the hedge. If one is interpreting that provision accurately, presumably one would not be allowed to cut one's own hedge. I suggest that that would apply to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and his bungalow. He might find that his hedge is within 30 metres of the centre of the highway and he would be precluded from cutting it.
Would the Minister of State be so good as to look at this matter again? The subsection seems complete nonsense but, if he cannot eliminate it altogether, would he at least accept an Amendment like mine in another place, introducing a measurement of five metres from the edge of the road?

6.15 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I thought for a moment that I must be listening to the annual general meeting of the Edinburgh, North Unionist Association bringing forth complaints about all these monstrous things which are being done to us in not being allowed to burn leaves, and the rest of it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) has misunderstood the Bill. He should read Clause 17 carefully. It says:
If a person, without lawful authority or excuse …
that implies that there is some lawful authority and excuse to do some of these things—
(c) lights any fire within 30 metres from the middle of a road and in consequence thereof the road is damaged …
Two things must happen. A fire must be lit within 30 metres of the middle of the road and damage must be caused to the road in consequence. The offence is only committed if the fire damages the road—that is to say, if there is physical damage to the road, an offence is committed. So, if someone lights a fire in his garden and that garden happens to be within 30 metres of the centre of the road, how can he do damage to the road if the road does not go into his garden, so to speak? It does not follow, therefore, that this offence can be caused by the innocent gardener or hedge clipper busily trying to dispose of clippings.
On the other hand, if the hon. Gentleman had his way, and his Amendment were accepted, it would mean that one could not burn the clipping by the side of the road. The side of the road, as we have said, is not on the road. It is by the side of the road. But it would be further than by the side of the road—the fire could not be within five metres of the side of the road—that this offence could, in his eyes, be committed. He would be imposing a greater tyranny than he imagines exists in the Bill. I notice that he is alone in supporting his Amendment and I understand why.


The Amendment would be even more undesirable than Amendment No. 18.

Mr. Brewis: As a corollary of what the hon. Gentleman says, supposing someone burns heather more than 30 metres from the centre of the road but damages the road because of the growth of the fire. Is that not an offence?

Dr. Mabon: That would probably be an offence under some other Statute. It could be argued that the fire was lit and swept into the area within 30 metres. But the question of whether the person actually lit the fire within 30 metres would not be a matter for me but for those dealing with the charge. There are sufficient provisions in other legislation to deal with those who light fires outwith this area and cause damage of different kinds.
I was asked where I got the 30 metres from. Thirty metres is 97 feet, which is nearly 100 feet, which is the old provision under Section XCVI of Schedule C to the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878. It is a distance we have always had in Scotland. It is not the English distance but I thought it right to reenact the Scottish distance, which has stood the test of time well. I see no reason to depart from it. I was also asked about the phrase, "the centre of the road". This is a re-enactment of the phrase, "of the centre of the road", contained in the 1878 Act.
Thus, at best, Amendment No. 19 is ambiguous and, at worst, a complete misunderstanding of this Clause. I do not think it right and fair that persons who commit damage to a road by lighting fires on the road should not be regarded as having committed a criminal offence. I think that they have. One thinks here not only of damage to the road but of damage and danger to the traffic. It is a terrible thing that the Conservative Party should appear to be in support of arsonists.

Earl of Dalkeith: Earl of Dalkeith rose——

Mr. Bence: Mr. Bence rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of State must decide to which hon. Gentleman he is giving way.

Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend, with respect.

Earl of Dalkeith: Earl of Dalkeith rose——

Mr. Bence: Mr. Bence rose——

Mr. Speaker: Apparently, both hon. Members are his friends. The Earl of Dalkeith.

Earl of Dalkeith: Many roads are ten metres wide. Thus, the centre of the road is five metres from the edge of the road. Therefore, 30 metres from the centre of the road takes one 25 metres beyond the edge of the road. As my Amendment suggests a distance of five metres from the edge, the hon. Gentleman is being five times as tyrannical as I am.

Mr. Bence: For the purpose of the measurement of 30 metres from the centre of the road, is a dual carriageway treated as one road or two?

Dr. Mabon: We would have to treat it as one road, most certainly. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) were present we could have the "50 metres on either side" argument. But the noble Lord is still misunderstanding the point. If there is no road within 30 metres of the centreline, there can be no prosecution because there can be no damage to a non-existent road. But if a portion of the road is within 30 metres and on that portion a fire is lit and damage is caused to the road, then a criminal offence has been committed.
The noble Lord keeps missing the point. If he lights a fire five metres from the legal end of a road, that is at the side of it, he does not cause any damage to the road. How could he? Therefore, why should it be a legal offence to do so, unless there is some other enactment applying? The noble Lord is normally quite bright. If such a case were raised in court it would have to be dealt with under some other enactment, but here we are dealing with highway legislation, where damage occurs to a road as a consequence of a fire having been lit. We are saying that in those circumstances there should be a criminal offence. To amend this provision as is suggested by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), or eliminating it, as suggested by the noble Lord, does not at all meet the point. It would be quite wrong not to have in here this section which has stood the test of time for so long


and has been a very considerable deterrent to this kind of activity.

Mr. Wylie: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether to his knowledge, there has ever been a prosecution under this Section of the 1878 Act?

Dr. Mabon: Without notice, I cannot answer that question. It is nearly 92 years since that Bill was passed in this House. I cannot say how many prosecutions have taken place under it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made:

No. 20, in page 10, line 35, after 'damages', insert 'or interferes with'.

No. 21, in line 35, after 'a', insert traffic sign, milestone'.

No. 22, in line 44, at end insert:
(2) In this section 'traffic sign' has the same meaning as in section 54(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 19

DANGEROUS VEGETATION AND FENCES NEAR ROADS

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 11, line 40, leave out 'interference or damage' and insert 'or interference'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 12, line 34, after 'in' insert the foregoing subsections of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that we take, with this Amendment, Amendment No. 25, with which it is obviously linked:
In line 36, at end insert:
(8) The highway authority shall not plant or cause to be planted beside any highway within reach of livestock on adjoining land any tree or shrub that could cause the poisoning of livestock and shall maintain any such existing tree or shrub in such manner as to prevent it from growing to a point where it becomes within reach of livestock.
(9) If the highway authority has failed to carry out the necessary work under subsection (5) of this section within a period of 10 days of notice of the danger to livestock being given in writing by the owner or occupier

of the adjoining land, that owner or occupier may make a summary application to the sheriff for an order requiring the highway authority to carry out the necessary work and the decision of the sheriff on the matter shall be final:
Provided that before the sheriff makes an order under this subsection he shall give an opportunity to the highway authority to make representations about its making.
(10) Where the sheriff makes an order under the last foregoing subsection requiring the carrying out of the work and the highway authority fail to carry out the work within 10 days of the making of the order or such longer period as the sheriff may allow, the adjoining owner or occupier may carry out the work himself.
(11) The adjoining owner or occupier may recover any expenses reasonably incurred by him in carrying out the necessary work in pursuance of the proviso to subsection (9) of this section from the highway authority.

Earl of Dalkeith: This Amendment is a prelude to Amendment No. 25 and it would be convenient for the House to take them both together. I sometimes feel that we are no longer living in the days of the Ten Commandments but in the days of the 1,010 Commandments and that one might substitute Mabon for Moses and St. Andrew's House for Mount Sinai; because the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends sit there churning out an endless profusion of tablets all of them giving us numerous instructions—"Thou shalt not do this, thou shalt not do that"; and even in one Clause, "Thou shalt not skip on the highway"—in Clause 22.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The noble Lord will come to his own Eleventh Commandment, I hope.

Earl of Dalkeith: I appreciate that in a modern society, overcrowded as we are, we have to have a great many regulations, particularly to protect individuals from themselves especially when so many are armed with lethal weapons like motor cars. I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his host of heavenly officials are not too successful in thinking up new ways of restricting us. I suggest that it is a pity, and rather irritating to the general public, that the general public is always wrong and Government bureaucrats are always right. I believe that my Amendment is not only sensible and practical but puts the boot on the other foot.
Obviously, we want to encourage highway authorities to be as amenity-conscious as they possibly can in laying out highway verges with trees and shrubs so that they are attractive not only to our own population but to tourists from abroad who come to enjoy our scenery. Therefore, one would not want to do anything which is going to discourage highway authorities from planting in an attractive fashion. But at the same time the wrong trees in the wrong places could have very dire results. If, for instance, yew trees or other poisonous herbs were planted by a well-meaning highway authority just the other side of a fence where stock are kept, the casttle within that field could be killed. I am not thinking of elephants or giraffes in this context, but it is amazing how long a reach cattle have across a fence, particularly if it is a wire fence which is slightly elastic. It is perfectly possible that this situation could arise.
I would suggest that it would not be a bad thing if occasionally, just to show good will, the highway authorities were prepared under this legislation to accept an occasional "Thou shalt not", just to redress the situation where all the rest of us are told, "Thou shalt not". I know that whenever I propose an Amendment, even a good one, it is always shot down by the argument of poor drafting. In this case I have cribbed almost verbatim the wording used in an earlier part of the section, so I hope that on that score at least it will pass and that the hon. Gentleman will look sympathetically at it, because I feel that it is an important point which deserves his attention.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: These Amendments would impose on a highway authority a very onerous duty. A highway authority would be obliged to safeguard livestock outside the highway by being prohibited from planting any trees or shrubs within reach of livestock and required to maintain any such existing tree or shrub in such a manner as to prevent it from growing to a point within reach of livestock. The first is a paving Amendment the second contains a provision similar to Clause 19 (subsections 3, 4 and 5) that before the Sheriff makes an order he shall give an opportunity

to the highway authority to make representations and where the highway authority fails to carry out the work within ten days or some longer period the adjoining owner or occupier may carry out the work himself and recover his expenses.
All this is somewhat misconceived, first of all because it is rather difficult to define what livestock is in this context—whether, for example, it includes dogs and poultry. At least in Clause 19(3) where the reverse position is dealt with it is made clear for the owner or occupier of adjoining land seeking to get redress in his circumstances. Basically, I am advised that the objection to these amendments is that they would impose on highway authorities, a duty which should belong to the owner of the livestock himself. It may be argued that these proposed subsections are perfectly reasonable since they merely enable the owner of livestock to require protection from the highway authority for his livestock in the same way that the authority is enabled, by the earlier provisions of Clause 19, to require him to take action to protect the road. But there is a difference, since the owner of property is basically responsible for the protection of his land and his livestock, and the highway authority is responsible for the road and the safety of the general public using the road. There is a clear responsibility falling on the highway authority for the safety of the general public.
6.30 p.m.
The noble Lord then spoke about dangerous trees overhanging roads and dilapidated walls at roadsides. Those are responsibilities of highway authorities. For that reason, the Clause, like Clause 20, gives highway authorities certain carefully defined powers to interfere with private proprietors in matters affecting the safety of road users. The private owner's respensibilities are not vicarious, and he can control the circumstances that affect his land or livestock. He can, for instance, fence his land to keep the livestock away from the road. The highway authority cannot in the same way keep the public off the road. Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that the powers conferred on the highway authority under the Clause should be accompanied by corresponding powers to the landowner.
That apart—this is a legal argument, not a drafting one—the word "livestock" is very difficult to define in this context. Moreover, the reference to trees or shrubs that could cause the poisoning of livestock is very wide. Certain livestock may die from eating one shrub. Other livestock may not. After all, what is a poison? Is it a poison to the animal's systematic process, or is it a poison by virtue of its choking of the animal's respiratory function? So the argument could go on. Why should the highway authority be responsible for a private owner's straying animals?
These are all very sensible criticisms. The logic of this is to fence, with the reservation that having fenced one is not liable, at the cost of probably about £2,000 a mile. This shows that it would be an incredible imposition on the public purse to try to achieve this, however, well merited the noble Lord may think his proposals are.

Earl of Dalkeith: The Minister of State is missing the whole point. I am talking about the situation when a local authority plants a yew tree, as it is allowed to do by Clause 8, on its own ground beside a road which is perhaps next door to a fence enclosing a field in which a farmer keeps all his cattle. The farmer's cattle can lean across the fence—they would not be straying on to the highway—and nibble at the branches of the yew tree. As a result, all the cattle could die. The farmer would have no redress. It is not for him to chop the tree down without the permission of the highway authority. I am seeking to protect farmers from highway authorities which are over zealous in the matter of planting yew trees in the wrong places.

Dr. Mabon: Then the logical cure is not to fence off all Scotland's roads, at a probable cost of £2,000 a mile. The cure is for the farmer to make proper representations that the poisonous shrubs should be removed. Alternatively, he should fence his land in such a way that his cattle do not get access to poisonous shrubs. The noble Lord seeks to nut the onus on the wrong person. A highway authority which received representations from farmers that shrubs and trees were poisonous to livestock would pay attention to the representations.

Mr. Bence: It would chop them down.

Mr. MacArthur: I am attracted by the Amendment. I protest at the way in which the Minister of State has treated the Amendment, the purpose of which is to protect farmers from the consequences of the exuberant planting of poisonous trees and shrubs by a local authority. It is conceivable that under the powers conferred by Clause 8 a local authority, particularly an urban one with a highway stretching into the nearby countryside, would plant trees and shrubs which were dangerous to livestock.
My noble friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) is not seeking to require the authority to erect miles of fencing. He is merely requiring—reasonably—that there should be a protection for farmers from the risk of their livestock being poisoned from eating poisonous shrubs and trees planted by the local authority beside their land.
The Minister of State said that it was impossible to determine the meaning of "livestock". I agree that it is, perhaps, too general a word, but there must be plenty of precedents in agricultural legislation setting out the definition of beasts. I cannot believe that it is beyond the ingenuity of the draftsmen to define "livestock" so as to meet my noble Friend's purpose.
The Minister of State objected to the Amendment also by asking what is meant by poisoning—is it a choking of the respiratory system or a poisoning in the normal sense? It does not matter a hoot at this stage what is meant by poisoning. What my noble Friend means by "poison" is "poison". If the Minister of State cannot understand that, he is being more than usually obscure, and I am sorry that his display of voluntary obscurity is leading to such an obscurantist approach to this very sensible Amendment. It is reasonable that highway authorities should be prohibited from planting yew trees or laburnum trees or some types of laurel or the many other forms of poisonous trees and shrubs which can kill livestock.
A farmer is permitted to drive livestock along a highway, provided that it is not a motorway. Surely there should be some protection for a farmer driving cattle or sheep down a road from the effect on his


livestock of poisonous trees or shrubs planted by the roadside. This point is not strictly covered by the Amendment, but it is a reasonable point. The Amendment's drafting may be defective, as is often the case, but it is wrong for the Minister of State to reject the Amendment out of hand for reasons which distort the original purpose of the Amendment and which are pernickety in the extreme.

Mr. Bence: The Amendment assumes that farmers would be so foolish as to turn their animals out where there were yew trees. All over the country there are graveyards with yew trees in them. No farmer would turn his cattle out into a graveyard.

Earl of Dalkeith: That is not the point. Yew trees can be planted on one side of an enclosing fence, on the edge of the highway authority's property. Those trees grow. Within five years their branches come within the reach of cattle the other side of the wire fence. Cattle stretch over the fence and nibble at the trees, as everybody knows cattle tend to do.

Mr. Bence: I was coming to that point. Anybody who knows the farming community and who was born and bred in the country—after all, farmers stopped traffic in towns with their wagons recently to get what they considered to be their reasonable demands—knows as well as I do that if a highway authority planted yew trees alongside land where a farmer grazed his cattle, they would all be uprooted the next day. As a countryman, I know vegetation that is dangerous to animals.
If the farming industry was as considerate on farms in the use of pesticides and insecticides alongside rivers as the noble Lord is asking highway authorities to be in the planting of trees, perhaps there would be more salmon and trout in rivers than there are today.
I am shocked by the noble Lord bringing forward such an Amendment and asking the Department to protect farmers against their own stupidity; because he would be a stupid farmer who turned cattle out on to an area of his farm which was bordered with yew trees or any other plants which were dangerous to his animals. This is a crazy Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 20

RESTRICTION ON PLANTING OF TREES, ETC. IN OR NEAR CARRIAGEWAY

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 12, line 38, leave out
'(shrubbery in centre of street)' and insert '(planting of trees in street), any provision in any local enactment having the like effect as that section'.
The Amendment does two things. First, it makes a purely drafting alteration in the reference to the powers in Section 14 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903. The rubric to that section of the 1903 Act reads,
Shrubbery in centre of street",
but this is not entirely accurate, since the relevant part of the section covers more than shrubbery in the centre of streets, and includes the planting of trees or shrubs anywhere in any street.
Second, the Amendment preserves the powers of local authorities which operate under similar local Act powers—for example Edinburgh and Dundee—and it is noteworthy that Section 14, and more particularly the local powers in Edinburgh and Dundee, give local authorities control over planting in private as well as public streets, and are therefore additional to any powers conferred by Clause 8 of the Bill. I think that this is a welcome Amendment.

Mr. Brewis: I think that the Amendment is satisfactory. We have recently had a report from the Special Housing Advisory Committee which said how important it was that trees and shrubs should be planted on council estates, and that these plants made a tremendous difference in built-up areas.
I thank the Minister for sending me a letter about the planting of poplars at the side of roads, in which he pointed out the technical reasons why this is not a good thing to do in Scotland. I am a little alarmed about the distance of 5 metres from the edge of the road, because I think that there are still woods as close to the road as that, but in general the Amendment is very satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 12, line 41,


leave out "made-up carriageway" and insert "road".

Mr. Speaker: I have suggested that with that Amendment we can take Amendment No. 30, in page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (4), which is linked with it.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is it necessary to be quite so pedantic about this? Could we not talk about a road, as we have done throughout the earlier parts of the Bill? Why is it necessary to start referring to a "made-up carriageway", and then have to give elaborate explanations of what is a made-up carriageway? Could we not, for the sake of simplicity, insert "road" instead of "made-up carriageway"?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: We have had representations from a number of people—and we shall come to these in a moment—about a person's right to plant trees, and so on, in his own garden. If we were to accept the Amendment the complaint would be somewhat aggravated, to put it mildly.
If we said "road" instead of "made-up carriageway", we would extend considerably the distance within which the planting of trees or shrubs would be prohibited. In Clause 48, by definition "road" includes the verges, so that the Amendment would prevent planting within five metres from the boundary of the road, which would extend the prohibited area further into land in private ownership on both sides.
In any case, it is desirable that the prohibition on planting should be related to distance from the made-up carriageway. The object is to minimise such evils as roots undermining the carriageway, leaves dropping on to the carriageway, where they cause skidding in many cases, and so on. There is no great necessity to protect verges outside the metalled part of the road. To the extent that it is desirable to prevent damage to footways, this also would be covered by the Clause as drafted.
I agree that the second Amendment is consequential. If the hon. Gentleman waits for a later debate, he will see that if we were to accept this Amendment we would aggravate the people whom we have been trying to placate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow us to get

to Amendments Nos. 28 and 47, rather than continue with this argument.

Amendment negatived.

6.45 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 12, line 41, at end insert
'without the highway authority's consent which shall not be unreasonably withheld'.

Mr. Speaker: I have suggested that with that Amendment we can take the following Amendments: No. 29, in page 12, line 41, at end insert
'without the consent of the highway authority'.
No. 48, in Clause 48, page 26, line 42, after first authority', insert as references'.

Dr. Mabon: May I address myself first to Amendments Nos. 28 and 47. As I hinted in the previous debate, these Amendments, taken together, are intended to meet representations which have been made by, among others, the Association of County Councils, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Glasgow Corporation, Glasgow Tree Lovers Society, and the Civic Trust, that the Clause as drafted is too restrictive and could prevent farmers from growing crops, or persons from planting flowers within their gardens, if the distance from the edge of the carriageway were less than five metres.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) made an earnest plea about this, and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State indicated at c. 189 of the Committee's proceedings that the drafting of subsection (1) would be reconsidered. The main Amendment is in Clause 48 Amendment No. 47, where the definition of "shrub" as including a plant of any description is deleted. The reference to trees or shrubs therefore cannot be taken as relating to flowers, farm crops, and so on, in Clauses 19 and 20. The wider definition will, however, be retained in Clause 8, where it is necessary to enable highway authorities to plant flower beds, and so on. This restriction on the categories of plants which are prohibited gets over a good deal of the difficulty that has been felt about the Clause.
Amendment No. 28 provides more flexibility in regard to the planting of trees and shrubs, and I hope that it will


commend itself to the hon. Gentleman. Instead of there being a flat prohibition on such planting, highway authorities are empowered to consent to the planting of trees and shrubs within five metres from the edge of the carriageway, and their consent is not to be unreasonably withheld. This will give highway authorities discretion to allow the planting of trees and shrubs of suitable types for the situation. The Government Amendments, taken together, will give the flexibility which was missing from the Clause as drafted while still enabling highway authorities to control the planning of poplars or forest-type trees too close to the carriageway.
Amendment No. 29 to some extent duplicates Amendment No. 28. Moreover, it does not go quite as far as our Amendment does. Let us say that on this occasion the good Lord is on the side of the angels. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow our Amendment to be made in preference to his.

Earl of Dalkeith: I welcomed the sight of the Minister's Amendment, which appeared before I had tabled my own which has more or less the same effect. I agree with the Minister that we shall still suffer from a bit of restriction which is rather unnecessary, and I suggest that before the next stage of the Bill he should consider linking the Amendment with two metres instead of five metres. This would meet the point made so eloquently in Committee by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).

Mr. Speaker: Order. The noble Lord is speaking to an Amendment which is not before us at the moment.

Earl of Dalkeith: I think that the Amendment is a considerable improvement. Nevertheless, those who have gardens on the edge of a highway, as happens in Edinburgh, will still frequently have to ask permission before they can plant certain trees and shrubs in their gardens. One wonders whether it is necessary for them to have to do this.
By Amendment 47 the Minister of State is depriving us of the definition of a shrub, which is perhaps rather a pity. It is quite easy to define. A shrub can be many things. It may be a prepared drink consisting of fresh orange or lemon mixed with rum. I personally prefer the

interpretation normally put on it, a woody plant smaller than a tree. This would have done admirably. It can mean a twig, sprig or sprout or, according to the Oxford Dictionary, a mean, inferior, insignificant person.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am enjoying this, but we are dealing with whether a highway authority's consent should or should not be given and whether it should not be unreasonably withheld.

Earl of Dalkeith: I thought we were taking also Amendment No. 47, which concerns the definition of a shrub?

Mr. Speaker: I apologise wholeheartedly. I had forgotten Amendment No. 47—back to the various definitions of shrubs.

Earl of Dalkeith: Oddly enough, Mr. Speaker, I have finished my definitions. May I suggest that the Minister considers putting in the sensible definition of a woody plant smaller than a tree. My reason for suggesting this is linked with Clause 8 where a special definition is given to "shrub" in that context. It means a plant of any description. This could include noxious weeds like thistles or willow-herb, which can sow themselves on adjoining land. This would be in contravention of an Act which was passed in 1962 or 1963. I invite the Minister to look again at this.

Mr. Willis: I, too, thank my hon. Friend for moving this Amendment, which gives a much greater degree of flexibility. I still think that there are difficulties. For instance, the noble Lord and I live in North Edinburgh, which has many squares containing beautiful gardens, and the trees and shrubs in those gardens are certainly not 5 metres from the highway. Does this mean that every time the gardener wishes to replant anything he has to go to Edinburgh Corporation to get permission? The Clause still seems to be restrictive.
There are many miles of country roads which are tree-lined and the trees are hardly 2 or 3 feet, never mind 5 metres, from the highway. If a tree is blown down in a gale, or a farmer thinks that a tree is getting old and should be replaced, he has to go to the county council to ask for permission to plant a tree where a tree may have stood for hundreds of years. Although I am grateful for


what my hon. Friend has done, there are still certain difficulties which might be looked at at a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thank the Minister for moving the Amendment. He mentioned several bodies which have made representations to him. One body which made representations to me was the Scottish Association of Registered Housebuilders, whose members are concerned with development. They found difficulties in the original Clause. The local authorities to which they have to go for planning permission often insist on planting schemes within the development. As the Clause stood there could be an element of conflict between what the Bill laid down and what the local authority required the developers to do.
It is generally accepted that there will always be conflict on these matters. On the one hand, we try to ensure safety on the roads and avoid damage to trees and, on the other hand, we want to see greater amenity and more trees. To the extent that the Amendments make tree planting possible, albeit permission from the local authority is required, I welcome them. I congratulate my noble Friend on his persistence in this matter of the shrubs, and I welcome Amendment 47. Previously the gardener envisaged by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) would have had to seek permission not only to plant or replant a shrub but to plant a pansy. Clearly, the Amendments were necessary, and I welcome them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

DEPOSIT OF MUD OR LIQUID FROM VEHICLES ON ROADS

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 13, line 14, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(1) Before any person uses or causes or permits to be used on a road any vehicle from which mud, clay, lime or other substance is liable to fall to such an extent as to cause danger to persons using the road he shall place, or cause to be placed, such warning notices as are appropriate in the circumstances, and where mud, clay, lime or other substance has so fallen on to the road he shall as soon as reasonably practicable take, or cause to be taken, all necessary steps to clear the road.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that the House should take Amendment No. 32, in page 13, line 20, at end insert:
save that any farmer who finds the temporary deposit of mud on a public road unavoidable, may instead for the duration of that deposit exhibit approved warning signs on the approaches to the hazard'.

Amendment No. 33, in page 13, line 25, at end insert—
(3) Where the terms of subsections (1) and (2) cannot be effectively complied with due to the nature of the work being performed by the said vehicle and when the activity in which it is engaged necessitates the repeated use of a certain section of the highway over a period of more than one day, it shall be the duty of the person in charge of that vehicle to obtain from the highway authority a suitable warning sign or signs which he shall prominently display and appropriately site so as to give approaching traffic due warning of the nature of the hazard likely to be encountered. It shall be the responsibility of the highway authority to provide a suitable warning sign or signs on loan without charge to any person who satisfies it that there is a bona fide requirement for such a warning; and if requested in writing the highway authority shall offer guidance on the positioning of such a warning sign or signs. Where a person has complied with the terms of this subsection he shall not be guilty of an offence under the next following subsection.
and Amendment No. 34, in page 13, line 32, at end insert—
(5) A person in charge of cattle that require to make repeated use of a certain section of the highway over a period of more than one day involving the deposit of mud or other matter on the highway so as to leave it in a slippery condition shall obtain from the highway authority a suitable warning sign or signs which he shall prominently display and appropriately site so as to give approaching traffic due warning of the nature of the hazard likely to be encountered. It shall be the responsibility of the highway authority to provide a suitable warning sign or signs on loan without charge to any person who satisfies it that there is a bona fide requirement for such a warning; and if requested in writing the highway authority shall offer guidance on the positioning of such a warning sign or signs.

Mr. Wylie: Clause 21(1) creates a statutory offence, and during the discussions in the Scottish Grand Committee on Second Reading and in Committee several criticisms were made about the provisions contained in the Clause. I will not delay the House by going into detail about the criticisms because the Government accepted that, as the Clause stood, it was unsatisfactory, and agreed that changes would be made. The


Clause in its original form is still with us, but I understand that it has not been possible for the Clause to be redrafted in the time available.
I repeat what I said before. The problem of mud on the roads from farm vehicles, and so on, is not confined to Scotland, and it would be preferable if the provision were contained in United Kingdom legislation, preferably in the Construction and Use Regulations. The provision fundamentally relates to the use of vehicles, and the Construction and Use Regulations are the appropriate regulations for this kind of provision. That is where one would look for it rather than in a roads Bill. The Construction and Use Regulations are revised every few years, and it would be possible to introduce necessary changes in the regulations within a relatively short time. But as it stands we are satisfied that the provision is not adequate.
I do not suggest that this Amendment is the solution to the problem. Amendment of the Clause is a matter for a skilled parliamentary draftsman. What is set down in Amendment No. 31 cannot claim that kind of expertise. But it seeks to embody the proposals contained in a letter from the Scottish National Farmers Union as to the best way to go about this problem.
7.0 p.m.
The Clause as it stands creates a statutory offence where there has been a steps to remove mud, clay and other substances adhering to the wheels or tracks or other parts of the vehicle, which, if not removed, would cause obstruction or danger or inconvenience to road users. It will be seen that I am paraphrasing the subsection. The Amendment seeks to create an entirely different offence. During the Committee stage my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) pointed out that it is almost impossible to prevent this kind of occurrence except at the most enormous cost which would be quite unacceptable to farmers, contractors or anybody else who was liable to create this kind of problem.
We began by recognising the fact that, particularly in country areas, one cannot stop vehicles going on to roads and

depositing heavy mud and other substances on them. The Amendment would place a statutory duty on the user, if this happened to such an extent as to cause danger, to put up a warning notice before he started on the road at all. In other words, if he had reason to suspect that this would happen, his first duty before he started his operations would be to put up a warning notice.
Furthermore, if material is left on the road the person has a statutory duty to clear the road and to remove mud as soon as reasonably practicable. I understand that this approach was recommended by the Scottish N.F.U. and appears to be a more commonsense and workable approach than that which is contained in the Bill.
I do not suggest that the wording of the Amendment is adequate. It is put down merely as a suggestion to the Government as to how it might be possible to deal with the matter when the Bill goes to another place. I understand that this is the Government's intention, and it is in this spirit that I move the Amendment.

Mr. David Steel: I support what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). My colleagues and I put down Amendment No. 32 simply because, having read the proceedings in Committee, we understood that it was the Government's intention to put down an Amendment on this matter, and we discovered last Thursday that no Amendment had been put down, and thought that an Amendment should be put down so that there could be a debate on the matter.
It does not particularly matter whether the Amendment stands or falls as a matter of drafting. The important thing is that we are pressing the Government for a declaration of principle that they will produce a provision of this kind, if not in this House, in another place. Those of us who represent agricultural constituencies have an obligation to ensure that legislation of this kind is well-intentioned and does not introduce severe and unintentional handicaps on hardworking farmers. Therefore, I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give a fairly firm undertaking that this point will be included in the Bill when it goes to the other place.

Mr. Adam Hunter: I am not so much concerned about mud being deposited on roads by farm vehicles as about mud being deposited in streets in built-up areas. The right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) appeared reluctant in Committee to appreciate that there could be inconvenience. He seemed to be more concerned about obstructions and dangers. This can be seen from his Amendment, No. 31, from which the words "or inconvenience" are omitted and it is this to which I object.
Since the Committee stage I have received a complaint bearing on this matter from a constituent in the burgh of Dumfermline. The gentleman concerned pointed out that there is a huge development scheme taking place near his house and the houses of his neighbours. It is a five-year project, which has been going on now for two years. All this time mud, clay and other material have been deposited on the roadway, on footpaths and on the site of his garage for which he pays £12 a year rent and rates. This is a terrible inconvenience both to him and to his neighbours. On occasions he needs to wear seaboots to get across the mud and clay, and there is a serious problem in this respect in his area.
The gentleman concerned has complained a number of times to the local authority and to the police. He has been helped by the police on many occasions, and they have had the mud cleaned up. However, recently the police have told him that they have no power to force the contractor concerned to clean up the mud. Not just one contractor is involved; several of them are. Therefore, it is difficult to pinpoint who makes the mess on the roadway.
I sincerely hope that the Minister of State will look again at this question and not give way too easily to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I hope that he will now be able to say who should enforce legislation of this kind. Is it the burgh authority or the police?

Sir John Gilmour: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). If it is agreed that notices shall be displayed giving warning of what is happening, then it is essential that those notices should be put up and taken down daily. On many occasions in the countryside

one sees notices saying "Timber operations in progress". They stand there for weeks and months, and possibly only once in a blue moon does anyone come to remove them. I hope that consideration will be given to this particular problem.

Mr. James Davidson: I, too, rise to support this Amendment No. 31 which, I suggest, is better drafted than Amendment No. 32 which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Peebles and Selkirk (Mr. David Steel) and myself. As a practising farmer, I would draw attention to an operation which takes place regularly throughout the autumn and winter in my part of the country, and that is the employing of middens and dung courts. When this is being done it may involve anything up to 150 trips a day between the midden and the field. It would be quite impracticable to clean off the vehicle on every run since each time it has to be backed into the midden to be filled up using a front or rear-mounted loader. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to look carefully at this Clause. It is quite unenforceable, and I am sure that the Minister accepts the principle that it is wrong to introduce legislation which is unenforceable. The words "reasonably practicable" do not mean very much in this context. What, for example, is reasonably practicable when it comes to cleaning off a tractor and muck spreader?
The Amendment might have been better if it had mentioned daylight hours. If a road has been messed up, it would be wrong for it to be left in that condition during the hours of darkness. There should be an obligation on the person who has caused the mess to clear it up at the end of the working day. However, he should not be obliged to keep it clear during the day. That would be a burdensome restriction on those doing the type of work which I have mentioned.
The Amendment should be accepted or at least seriously considered by the Minister, and I hope that he will undertake to do something along the lines proposed in it.

Mr. Willis: It is clear that this is a very difficult problem. Most of the Amendments talk about putting up special warning notices for the benefit of oncoming motorists. However, that does not obviate the difficulty raised by my


hon. Friend the Member for Dumfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter). In the case to which he has referred, all that the contractors need do is put up a notice, and they can carry on for another three or four years cluttering up the road with mud and water—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read the Amendment."] They have to take all necessary steps as soon as possible. However, this job is a continuing one, and the simple idea of a notice is not sufficient.
On the other hand, I appreciate the case which has been put by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There are certain operations on farms and even in towns where it would be almost impossible to take all necessary steps to prevent mud and dirt from getting on roads. Even as the Clause is worded at the moment, the words "all steps reasonably practicable" offer some form of safeguard. I cannot see a court ruling that it is practicable to stop a lorry or a tractor on the edge of a road every 20 minutes in order to clean the wheels and under-carriage to prevent mud being taken on the road. Neither can I imagine that the police, who would have to operate it, would consider that it was reasonably practicable to do so.
Thinking about the problem more and more, I tend to come down on the side of the Government and the Clause as it is, strangely enough—[Interruption.] One would think that I am in the habit of not coming down on the side of the Government. This is a very intelligent Government. It is the most intelligent Government that we have had for years—certainly since 1951. They have tried to frame a Bill in a manner which takes into account all these various and sometimes opposing considerations. I would have thought therefore that the flexibility contained in subsection (1) was of itself probably desirable.
Having said that, I agree that there is no harm done in looking again at the position, taking into account the various aspects put forward by hon. Members, with a view to seeing whether it cannot be improved. However, I still maintain that it would be difficult to improve upon the existing wording.

Earl of Dalkeith: To show what a remarkable state of mind I am in, I begin

by saying that I agree with the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that this is the best Government that we have had for five years.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I did not say that.

Earl of Dalkeith: I also agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter), who made an extremely valid point about building contractors operating in towns. This highlights the difficulty that we face. We are trying to produce one Clause to suit the situation in towns and the situation in the country at the same time. I do not think it is possible to do that, because the conditions are quite different.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that steps must be taken somehow to bring to book contractors who pay no heed to warnings that they are given about depositing large quantities of mud on our streets and pavements because they are not backed up with authority. In a case where an expensive building scheme is in progress, the provision of a water pump for the spraying of vehicle wheels may not be an out of the way cost. In the country, it would be ruinous if farmers had to provide the same facilities for tractors coming off fields.
I do not suggest that my Amendments go anywhere near meeting the problem. All that I attempted to do was to introduce the idea of a system of warning signs where a farmer or other user of a road cannot help making a mess on it. In such a case, he could apply to the highway authority for a suitable notice. If the Government showed their willingness to accept the principle of displaying a notice in such a case, I would be very much happier.

Mr. MacArthur: All these Amendments have a lot of merit, but what attracts me to Amendment No. 31 is that it restricts the possibility of an offence to a circumstance in which mud, clay, lime or other substance falls upon the road to such an extent as to cause danger to road users. That is a restriction which should be applied to the Clause in whatever form it emerges from this debate.
The idea behind the Amendment is that the person whose operations are liable to cause danger in this way should pre-


vent the danger from harming the user of the road by displaying warning signs. This is a sensible way round the problem. If the Clause remains as it is, a farmer's life will become impossible to follow. Hon. Members already have referred to some of the extreme problems which they would face. Perhaps I might remind the House that in every working day a farmer at some time will have to drive a tractor from a field on to a road. Every time he does that, some mud will fall off the tractor's wheels on to the road. That is inevitable.
The amount of mud falling on to the road would not cause danger to the user of the road though it could cause inconvenience. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) always tries to seek a proper balance in these matters, and it is surprising to hear him praising a Government who seek to make inconvenience a statutory offence. What is inconvenience? How does one measure it?

Mr. Willis: That is quite true. However, until now it has not applied to the case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter), which is a very serious one.

Mr. MacArthur: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) points out to me that the problem confronting the constituent of the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs would very likely amount to danger. If there is mud on a road to that extent it is liable to be a dangerous area of road because of the skid risk to traffic passing along the road. Therefore, signs would have to be displayed. I think that that point is met.
Equally, I think that the Clause has been drafted from an urban-minded view, because it pays no regard to the reality of life in the country.
I return now to the inconvenience point. I was reminding the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that he was praising a Government which are causing the creation of inconvenience to be a statutory offence. It is astonishing to hear a Government supporter defending the use of a word like "inconvenience" in the Clause when, only an hour or so ago, the Minister of State was rebuking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for

Edinburgh, Pentlands for the use of the word "material" or "materially" in referring to the alteration of the level of the highway. What, said the Minister of State does "materially" mean? How can we determine what it means? My hon. and learned Friend rightly called his attention to the de minimis rule whereby one can measure the level at which material alternations begin. But, goodness me, if the Minister of State objects to the imprecision of the word "materially", how much more he must object to the imprecision of the word "inconvenience".
What does "inconvenience" mean? If a lady going to a party in high-heeled shoes, open at the toes, happens to tread in a small lump of mud that has fallen from the wheel of a tractor and damages the nylon stocking inside the open bit of shoe, she is unquestionably suffering inconvenience, and, because of that, the operator of the tractor is committing an offence. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East shakes his head, but the operator of the tractor is committing an offence.

Mr. Willis: Only if he had not taken all steps reasonably practicable.

Mr. MacArthur: This is the point. It is totally unreasonable to expect a farmer to hose down his tractor wheels at all moments of the day. A farmer may drive his tractor on to a road and drop a small amount of mud which could not cause danger to anyone. But, according to the wording of the Clause as it stands, the lady who stubs her toe in the mud and damages her stockings is suffering inconvenience—[Interruption.]—if she suffers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear about the lady.

Mr. MacArthur: If she suffers inconvenience and can show that she is suffering inconvenience, a farmer is guilty of an offence and will be liable to a fine not exceeding £20. This is utter nonsense. I cannot believe that the Government seriously intend to allow the Clause to be enacted as it stands.
What has happened to the assurances which the Minister of State gave in Committee about the re-wording of the Clause? I was not a Member of the


Committee, but I understand that assurances were given. We are contemplating an absurd and totally unworkable Clause. I ask the Minister of State, when he next goes to Greenock, to look at the countryside in Renfrewshire to see the reality of farming life and to compare it with the impossible requirements of the Clause. If he does that, he will quickly turn to the Amendment.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: As the representative of a country constituency who was not a member of the Committee, I should like to support strongly the Amendment advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie).
I am profoundly alarmed by the Clause as it stands. I dread to think of the real inconvenience that it would cause to the agricultural industry. It refers to inconvenience to road users, but there is also the inconvenience to the agricultural industry.
We need only consider the rather horrific example advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) about the lady in her hose and the tractor which was not hosed to see how embarrassing these problems could be.
I do not think that the objection advanced by the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) to the elimination of the word "inconvenience" in the Clause stands up. I do not think that he has properly studied the concluding part of the Amendment, which states,
he shall as soon as reasonably practicable take, or cause to be taken, all necessary steps to clear the road.
This, or something along these lines, must be the right answer. First, the obligation should be on the farmer or the contractor to place a notice warning road users when danger is liable to occur as a result of mud being upon the road. Secondly, there should be an obligation upon him, as soon as reasonably practicable, to clear up the mess which has been created on the road.

Mr. Adam Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what would happen if it is not done? Does he suggest that if it is not cleaned up at the end of the day and it lasts for about two years some

legislation should be passed to make it an offence?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If the hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, then failure in a reasonable time to clear up the mess would clearly be an offence under the terms of the Clause. Therefore, his case is met.
The hon. Gentleman asked what authority was to take action against the kind of nuisance to which his constituent had been subjected. In a sense he got the answer from his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. But that was not his right hon. Friend's intention. He said that he preferred the Clause as it is because it is unenforceable. I believe that the Clause as it stands would be quite unenforceable. If anybody tried to enforce it, it would cause intolerable hardship, particularly in the agricultural industry, and possibly even to some contractors. That is why I feel sure that the Amendment strikes the right balance.
I was impressed by the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) about not wanting notices staying up for months on end. We know how often that occurs. I think that a slight emendation of the Clause of the lines suggested by my hon. Friend would be useful. We cannot allow the Bill to pass into law with the Clause as it stands.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: We have had a very interesting debate. The Government will certainly take into account the comments that have been made by all who have participated, including those hon. Members who made mention in Committee of this important matter.
Flanders and Swann claim in their famous song,
Mud, mud, glorious mud;
There's nothing quite like it for cooling the blood.
Certainly the debate has been constructive, rather than critical, about how the Government should rewrite the Clause.
I welcome the Amendment, because it has given us a chance to debate the matter. In Committee, my hon. Friend, to whom I am indebted for carrying the Bill through to the end, indicated that a possible approach to the problem of mud on roads might lie along the lines suggested by the N.F.U. in Scotland which proposed that the alternative should


remain open either of cleaning a vehicle before taking it on the road, as the Clause requires, or of cleaning the mud from the road where it is impracticable to clean the vehicle first.
We have been discussing with the N.F.U. and others how we might rephrase this part of the Bill. However, we are not at this stage able to put anything before the House. It will no doubt be debated elsewhere, because we propose to ask hon. Members not to press the Amendment, so it will probably come back to us and we can discuss the matter yet again.
I suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands that it is not wise to rely on any revision of the Construction and Use Regulations to provide a solution to the problem. I accept that they are relevant and they may be part of the jigsaw that is the answer to the problem. But they will not in themselves be a solution. We have to put something in the Bill as well as buttressing it with what is done in practice.
7.30 p.m.
The Amendments deal with the way mud should be removed from the road. Amendment No. 31 is the one which I would choose if I had to choose any. It suggests that, where mud has fallen on the road from a vehicle, the person responsible for the vehicle should clear the road.
The other three Amendments deal with the placing of warning signs, but it is not good enough to leave it at that. Hon. Members have made a very good point about notices remaining up for some time and local authorities have put this criticism to us. They do not like signs being the only remedy. Their usefulness would be undermined anyway if the practice to which the hon. Member referred continued. There must be an obligation somewhere for putting up and removing these signs so that they genuinely refer to a happening on that day; they would be devalued otherwise.
Another point put to us is that it is unfair to leave it to the highway authority to provide all the signs. It can never control at what times the signs would be required and it might be more convenient, given my first criticism, for the farmer if he were responsible. This is still open for discussion, but although

the design and so on would be matters for the Departments concerned—we must discuss this with the Ministry of Transport, which will mean discussion in some depth—we must ensure consistency in the use and nature of the signs.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would it not be possible to provide that the removal of the signs should coincide with the clearance of the road? Would that not be the simple and logical answer?

Dr. Mabon: That is a fair point, and we want to take account of it. We do not have to write a separate statutory provision into the Bill to confer powers. We already have them. Section 54 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967 empowers us to make Regulations prescribing the signs for a temporary obstruction or putting up warning signs and so on. The existing Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964 do not authorise farmers to set up warning signs relating to mud. We should have to make some amendment of those Regulations—

Mr. James Davidson: There is also the situation in which one drives around the corner to find a herd of cattle being driven from dairy to field, or vice versa, or a flock of sheep. When he is considering the Amendment, would the hon. Gentleman consider a sign to cover this eventuality too, because it is a parallel situation?

Dr. Mabon: With respect. I should like to consider that separately from the Bill. We must give our colleagues in another place some advice, and we should like the discussions on this issue, which is rather complicated, to reach a satisfactory conclusion, so that whatever is suggested in another place proves acceptable to us in relation to Clause 21. I will certainly investigate that other point, but I do not want to confuse the issue at the moment. It is difficult enough without taking it a stage further.
I have noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) said, and I would remind him that the agency for enforcing this matter is, of course, the police. We have to take into account the fact that we are trying earnestly to find a solution to the problem. The suggestion in Amendment No. 31 might be the right lines on which to deal with this. We


cannot leave it at warning signs. We must clean either the vehicle or the roads as well. This is the drift of the present discussion and I hope that those putting down Amendments will accept that we must do something more. We shall be very interested to see what their Lordships make of this. On the strength of this definite assurance, I would ask the hon. Members not to press the Amendments.

Mr. MacArthur: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he assure us that, in whatever Amendments ire brought forward, the word "inconvenience" will disappear from the Clause?

Dr. Mabon: I should not like to give that assurance. Despite the highly entertaining "big toe, small toe" argument of the lady involved in the mud, that showed that there is a point in what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline said. The hon. Gentleman's own argument, if not a reductio ad absurdum case, was at least a de minimis one. There is something in what my hon. Friend said. I would not like to dismiss the matter calmly, as the hon. Gentleman did, and say that there would be no question of inconvenience. That would preclude the present discussion, and that is the last thing which we want to do.

Mr. Wylie: I hope that, if the word "inconvenience" is retained, it will be qualified with the word "material", so that we do not create statutory offences in ridiculous circumstances.
We have had an interesting debate. I am grateful for what the Minister of State has said, and we will await with interest the further developments in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23

REMOVAL OF BUILDERS' SKIPS CAUSING DANGER OR OBSTRUCTION

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 14, line 27, after second "a", insert "police".

Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient, I think, to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 36, in page 14, line 27, leave out "in uniform".

Earl of Dalkeith: These are very small probing Amendments. Is there any special reason why a plain clothes policeman should not be entitled to perform this function? I also want to be assured that this does not mean that a police sergeant cannot do so.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I regarded these Amendments, as the hon. Gentleman described them, as probing Amendments designed to elicit an explanation of the use of the terms "constable" and of "constable in uniform".
The Amendments would enable a plain clothes constable to require the removal of or to remove a builders' skip which is likely to cause danger or obstruction. It is standard practice in an Act of Parliament to refer to a "constable" without including the prefix "police". For instance, the Police (Scotland) Act 1956, refers throughout to a "constable", which it defines as
… a constable (including the chief constable) of a police force".
It covers a policeman of any rank.
The reference to a "constable in uniform" is quite deliberate. It is highly desirable, in the interests of the public and of the individual who is being required to remove the skip, that the authority of the constable should be immediately apparent, especially as the skip may have been deposited with the permission of a highway or buildings authority. We drafted the Clause with this in mind. There is a precedent in Section 2 of the Road Safety Act, 1967, dealing with breathalyser tests. I hope that the noble Lord will agree, with that explanation, that it is right that we should insist on its being a "constable in uniform".

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in line 31, after 'authority', insert 'or a buildings authority'.
Under the Bill, power in respect of builders' skips is exercised by both the highway authority and the buildings authority. Clauses 22 and 23 deal with this aspect. For the first time, however, we see that the highway authority is being given power in relation to builders' skips


for purposes other than building purposes, whereas under Section 8 of the Building (Scotland) Act, 1959, power to give authority to deposit skips is given to the building authority alone.
Under this provision a highway authority is given power to require the removal or repositioning of builders' skips, and we wonder if this will lead to confusion. We have two different sets of authorities, both with power to authorise the depositing of skips, but, when it comes to their removal, power is vested in only one authority. Why does not the building authority have power to require their removal in certain circumstances as well?
We can discuss this question in detail in Committee on another building Measure which we shall shortly be discussing upstairs. Since this is the first occasion when the power is being split, as it were, we must ensure that we have got the provision right because we do not want there to be confusion.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: This subsection enables a highway authority to require the removal or repositioning of a skip where there is a contravention of Clause 22. The possible contraventions are, first, that the skip is in a road without the consent of the highway authority, or, secondly, that there is a breach of a condition that the highway authority attached to its consent; for example, that the skip is in a place where it is not authorised to be.
The Amendment would authorise a buildings authority to require a skip to be removed or repositioned in such circumstances. This is unacceptable, for it would be inappropriate that the buildings authority should penalise infringements arising in the province of the highway authority. This is the more necessary because there should be no overlapping of functions. Clause 22 specifically applies to the use of builders' skips which are not being used for building operations. The reason is that under Section 8 of the Building (Scotland) Act, 1959, a buildings authority can authorise a person to occupy a street temporarily in connection with building operations, and this enables it to attach conditions to the use of builders' skips in streets for building operations.
It is, therefore, unnecessary to make double provision by also giving the highway authority control over skips used for building operations. In case of emergency, of course, a constable in uniform could require the removal or repositioning of such a skip under Clause 23(1). We therefore have an emergency mechanism if there is doubt. A constable would be acting in the knowledge that an obstruction was being caused, and he could order its removal whatever else applied—that is, whether the skip had been rightly or wrongly placed, by whichever authority it had been placed there and whether or not consent had been obtained. If a nuisance or obstruction was being caused, he could have it removed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: For the guidance of the House, would the hon. Gentleman say what liaison there is in cases like this between the highway authority and the buildings authority in the siting of skips?

7.45 p.m.

Dr. Mabon: There is always the possibility that the two authorities will not act together, but it must be recognised that the primary responsibility rests with the highway authority. We are concerned with obstructions on the highway and with the various use of skips on the roadway. We must have a mechanism to insure that if there is danger, albeit temporary, to the proper flow of traffic, the powers in the provision should be available. For this reason it would be unwise to add a reference to the buildings authority. Naturally, the buildings authority has its place and is entitled to give authorisations. However, we should not include or confuse these activities with the activities of the highway authority. Although these activities are sometimes the same, they are not always identical.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in line 40, leave out "of the condition".
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on a Government Amendment to subsection (2) which was made in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24

OBSTRUCTIONS AND EXCAVATIONS IN ROADS WITHOUT CONSENT

Mr. Brewis: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 15, line 11, after "shall", insert "wilfully".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sidney Irving): I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 40, in page 16, line 12, after "person", insert "wilfully".

Mr. Brewis: That is convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and there is a respectable argument for inserting the word "wilfully" in any question of a criminal act in that there should be some guilty intent. However, I do not wish to argue along that line but to raise a small matter which was mentioned in Committee; namely, whether a car which has broken down could be construed as an obstruction within the meaning of this provision.
When the Minister replied in Committee he promised to look at the matter, although at that stage he did not think that "obstruction" would be defined as applying to a car which has broken down. An abandoned car, however, such as one sometimes sees in side streets with no wheels and a broken windscreen, should, I submit, count as an obstruction, and therefore the Amendment raises a fine distinction between a car which has broken down for the time being and an abandoned vehicle.
If a car has temporarily broken down it is absurd to suggest that the driver must fence it and light it. Obviously one cannot carry a lot of fencing in the back of one's car and, similarly, if the vehicle's lights are left on for a considerable time the battery will run down. I am sure that few hon. Members break down wilfully, certainly not at our age. We may have done certain things in our youth, but the word "obstruction" should not apply to cars which have broken down. For this reason, the inclusion of the word "wilfully" would prevent the Clause from being used to create an offence which it was never intended to create.

Mr. Bence: Having driven on the Continent for many years, I have adopted

the practice of carrying in my car two triangles which, should I break down, I can display in the roadway one hundred feet or so fore and aft of my car to warn motorists of a pending obstruction. Many motorists are carrying these triangles voluntarily. If I break down and place my triangles in the roadway and a motorist swerves to avoid one of them and has an accident, could I be liable to prosecution under the Clause for causing an obstruction?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I find that a most interesting contribution. Perhaps we should consider it as a possible alternative to being obliged to provide lights and fencing around an obstruction.

Mr. Dempsey: I ask my hon. Friend not to make that provision, because if red lamps or warning triangles were put on the road to guard motor cars left there they could be removed by vandals.

Dr. Mabon: This is rather an urban v. rural point. I understand the object of these Amendments. There is the other side of the argument, which is that if we put in the word "wilfully" it could mean that the prosecutor in any offence would be obliged to prove that there was criminal intent on the part of the persons concerned. The persons concerned could plead ignorance that they required authorisation to do all the things mentioned in the Clause, which is not confined to a temporary breakdown of a motor car but to abandoned, completely useless cars causing obstruction in the street.
There is reference in the Clause not only to obstructing but to digging up the road. I do not think there is such a thing as accidental excavation, but it would be wrong if someone innocently involved in the breakdown of his car should necessarily be culpable. I imagine that no one would prosecute in that case, because the car owner would not be in a position to apply to the highway authority to allow him to have a breakdown and he would not want to have a breakdown anyway. I will look at this matter again. It would be wrong to put in the word "wilfully". This is not a minor point of drafting, but a significant point of importance in this context. I think the hon. Member who moved the Amendment recognised that. I ask him not to press his Amendments. I shall see whether the isolated incident of the breakdown


of a car might be dealt with in some other way.

Mr. Brewis: In view of that assurance, I have pleasure in saying that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25

FENCING AND LIGHTING OF OBSTRUCTIONS AND EXCAVATIONS

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 16, line 17, at end insert—
(2) If the person referred to in the foregoing subsection fails to cause an obstruction or excavation to be properly fenced and, during the hours of darkness, to be properly lighted, the highway authority may cause the obstruction or excavation to be properly fenced and, during the hours of darkness, to be properly lighted, and recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing from that person.
May I suggest that we discuss with this Amendment Amendment No. 42.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Yes, if that is to the convenience of the House.

Dr. Mabon: In Committee, the Opposition tabled Amendments to enable a highway authority to fence and light an obstruction or excavation which had been left unfenced or unlighted and to recover the expenses from the person responsible for failing to do so. The Under-Secretary of State accepted the Amendments in principle and promised that Government Amendments would be put down on Report to cover the point. The new subsection proposed by the Amendment I have moved is in keeping with provisions of a similar type in the Bill, in Clauses 18(1) 23(2) or 24(4) giving the highway authority residual powers to remedy dangerous conditions. The second Amendment is a consequential drafting Amendment.

Mr. Monro: I thank the Minister of State for putting forward this Amendment, which entirely meets the point which I raised in Committee. It will certainly be welcomed by local authorities, which may—I do not say more than may—sometimes have to put up lights on obstructions and will now have a right to recover the expenses. I hope the

Minister of State will consider whether we should add something on these lines to Clause 18. Perhaps in another place it might be considered whether it is necessary to have the same provisions for a local authority to recover expenses, but I do not press that at the moment.

Mr. George Younger: Before we leave this Amendment, I draw attention to two further points. I hope that the Minister of State noticed that in Committee his hon. Friend who was conducting the Government's case in his absence kindly said that he would look into the whole question of the definition of "the hours of darkness" and whether this was perfectly good for modern conditions. I hope that the Minister of State will bear this in mind and write to me telling me the result of those investigations.
Perhaps also in another place, or by writing, the Government can let us know their latest thinking concerning the adequacy of lighting of cars which have been stopped on the roads for one reason or another and are causing obstruction. I had personal experience recently of inadequacy of the normal lighting at the rear of cars stopped under modern driving conditions. I should like the hon. Gentleman to let us know his thinking particularly on the question of the need for flashing lights to be on cars left on the road in these circumstances. It is not enough for them to have reflectors showing and nothing else.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I shall certainly look at this point in relation to Clause 18 and without commitment see if anything is necessary. I will write to the hon. Member about the first matter he mentioned. I shall have to think about the second matter. I will consider it and see if anything should be done.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 42, in line 18, leave out 'the foregoing subsection' and insert 'subsection (1) of this section'.—[Dr. Dickson Mahon.]

Clause 27

POWER TO INSTAL REFUSE OR STORAGE BINS IN ROADS

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 17, line 1, leave out 'in' and insert 'beside, on'.
The effect of this Amendment would be to make the provision read:
The highway authority may provide and maintain beside, on or under a road bins or other receptacles, …
This may seem a small point, but if we do not make the Amendment the highway authority would be precluded from putting such receptacles for waste paper or for storage of sand or grit at the side of the road which one would expect to be the place to store such things. I wonder if on technical grounds this Amendment should not be made. I believe there was an explanation of what was meant by "under a road" but the point about "in the road" was not covered. I should have thought that any doubt would have been completely cleared by adding the words, "beside, on".

Dr. Dickson Mabon: It seems that we are destined to be arguing about "beside the road" and "on the verge" all the way. If we were to accept the word "beside" in this Amendment it would mean that we were authorising the maintenance of litter bins and other receptacles on the land of adjoining owners. I would be surprised if the noble Lord's friends in the Scottish Landowners' Federation would treat him well if I were to agree to that at this stage. If he looks at Clause 48(1) he will see the definition of a road.
It says that "road" includes any adjoining verge or footway. Therefore, anything which lay beside the road would be outside the boundary fence. I do not think that "beside" is right, but if the Opposition want to press the matter I will make some inquiries and see whether we can find another interpretation. My preference is very much that we should leave "in" in and not put "beside, on" in.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 32

ACQUISITION OF LAND TO PROVIDE NEW MEANS OF ACCESS WHERE ACCESS TO PREMISES STOPPED UP.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 19, line 34, after "may", insert
acquire land by agreement or compulsorily as is reasonably required".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 45, in page 20, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 4.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Wylie: The Clause gives the highway authority power to acquire land for the purpose of providing a new means of access. The limit of the acquisition is set at the distance of 800 metres from the middle of the highway or road. Obviously, the highway authority must take a wider latitude here than it would in other instances, such as the 200 metres referred to in others parts of the Bill, because the provision of an access may involve going further away from the roadway than would be necessary in the circumstances with which other Clauses are concerned.
Instead of specifying such a figure it would be better to refer broadly to such land
as is reasonably required
for the provision of an access. That is what is sought by these two Amendments, though whether they achieve it may be another matter. As amended, the Clause would read:
The highway authority may acquire land by agreement or compulsorily as is reasonably required for the purpose of providing a new means of access—".
This is a small Amendment which will certainly not be pressed if there are solid reasons against it.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend has been very generous to the Opposition in his acceptance of Amendments. I felt a wee bit doubtful about his generosity, but this is a reasonably good Amendment and I hope that he may be persuaded to accept it. It makes for better English than the present Clause, bringing out clearly immediately after the word "may" what may be done, whereas the Bill, after talking about a new means of access speaks about acquiring land
… by agreement or compulsorily within 800 metres from the middle of that highway or road.
It is bad English; it breaks up the continuity.
I know that we cannot draft Bills with the kind of English we find in Robert Louis Stevenson, or even in Robert Burns's letters and writing of that kind, but we can try wherever possible at least to preserve continuity of thought and


thus make the legislation more easily understood.
I also think that it is sensible to take away the 800 metres restriction. There may well be a good reason for providing access to a place such as a house or a farm substantially beyond the 800-metre range, and it would be a pity if it could not be provided just because of the 800 metres provision.
Perhaps some of my hon. Friends will try to bring additional pressure to bear on my hon. Friend to accept this reasonable, sensible Amendment.

Mr. Younger: I would be inclined to object to the figure of 800 metres rather more on the grounds that it would often be much too far from the centre of the road than not far enough.
The much better point is that we should not write into legislation such specific limits in any direction in a matter like road-making. Techniques change so much over the years that whereas 800 metres might or might not be right now it would almost certainly turn out to be wrong in perhaps 10 years' time. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take out the specific figure of 800 metres. Something on the lines of the Amendment would be much better.

Mr. Bence: It is very seldom that I support an Opposition Amendment. I remember that in the 13 years we were in Opposition we put down Amendments time and again asking the Secretary of State to do something reasonable, and rarely succeeded in having "reasonable" inserted. I support the Amendment because, knowing my hon. Friend and how reasonable he is and has been this evening, I think that this is the right time in history to introduce into legislation a provision that a Minister of the Crown shall act reasonably. I am a great admirer of my hon. Friend's reasonableness in all matters.
I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) would spend more time on the Amendment, because he mentioned Robert Louis Stevenson and might have quoted a little from his wonderful essay "Travels with a Donkey".
When we are talking about access to roads and carriageways, especially where

access to existing premises has been stopped or closed up, it is only right that we should put into the Measure a phrase cutting out all specific limitation and making the construction of such access dependent on what is reasonable in the given situation.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In view of the four expressions of opinion from a reasonable cross-section of both sides of the House it is fair that I should seek to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend and see whether we might make a change. Provided the Amendments are not pressed, I shall certainly discuss the question with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Wylie: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37

POWERS OF ENTRY

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 22, line 4, at beginning insert
'Without prejudice to sections 7 and 10 of this Act.'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 48

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 26, leave out line 24.

No. 48, in page 26, line 42, after first 'authority,' insert 'as references'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Schedule 2

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 30, line 45, column 3, leave out
'Section 1(1)(b)'and insert'The whole Act'.

No. 50, in page 30, line 47, at end insert

7 &amp; 8 Eliz 2, c. 70
The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1959
Section 46.


—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's Consent signified.]

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I would like to draw attention to the first two Clauses of this Bill because they are of particular significance. On Second Reading we expressed our disquiet at the reduction of the minimum period for objections from three months to six weeks, as set out in Clause 1. Although the Government have given some assurances while the Bill has been passing through this House, the main provision has not been changed. The position therefore is that if the Bill passes through the other place in this form there will be a new situation in Scotland, quite different from that in England. This is being introduced first in Scotland.
There will be a shorter period for objections. I give the Government notice that we will watch very carefully the interests of individual freedom on the question of the time allowed for objections. There should be proper opportunities to learn what is proposed, and there should be time to lodge considered objections. All will now depend upon the way in which the Government of the day administer this Measure when it becomes law. Six weeks will be the minimum, and the Government will have discretion to make it longer. As the government of the day will most probably, before long, be a Conservative Government, there is that assurance to all concerned that this power will not be abused.
I turn now to Clause 2, which is a very important Clause. I acknowledge that the Government are allowing proceedings to run concurrently, which has been happening in England and Wales, and which was needed in Scotland. We hope that it will speed up road-building procedures and that the trunk roads will be built without avoidable delay. There have been many other points raised, and this side of the House has obtained a

considerable number of improvements. I acknowledge at once that the two Ministers who have been responsible at various times for the Bill have been very reasonable in some of these matters. It is greatly to the credit of my hon. Friends that so much has been achieved, and much of it is the result of hard work by them.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Before dealing with the two points raised by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell), I would say "Thank you very much" to the Opposition for the way in which they have co-operated in what has been a sensible and constructive Report stage. We have reached substantial agreement, and that is the best that could be said of any Government or Opposition at any time.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomed Clause 2, which means that we are catching up with the English. The English have pioneered concurrent procedure and done it very well. Now we are copying them. I am only sorry that when the hon. Gentleman referred to the other matter, reducing the period from three months to six weeks, he did not observe that we in Scotland are pioneering and hope that the English will copy us.
We in this Administration are anxious that everyone will feel that their rights are preserved. It is perfectly possible for someone to lodge an objection in general terms within six weeks, for example:
This road will sever my land.
At a later stage he can fill out the technical details. We shall be watchful of this, as the present Administration and as the next one. We will now get to work on consolidation when the Bill proceeds to its later stages. The record of motorway building which we have achieved in the last five years, 101 miles as opposed to 68 miles in the preceding five years, will be even better.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SCOTLAND (RATE REBATES)

8.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move,
That the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) (Scotland) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before the House on 4th February, be approved.
The purpose of this order, which is simply to maintain the benefits of the rate rebates scheme introduced under the Rating Act, 1966, ought to commend itself to the House. The Scottish local authority associations have been informed about what is proposed and are in favour of it.
As hon. Members know, the rebate scheme gives relief to domestic ratepayers of small means. The limits built into the scheme determine the income below which ratepayers qualify for the full amount of relief. Section 7(6) of the 1966 Act empowers the Secretary of State to raise this qualification level as may be required. This has already been done once, in 1968, by an order similar to the one which is now before the House.
The reason why the time has come to raise the limits again is quite straightforward. Most of those who qualify for rate rebate—as many as 75 per cent.—are pensioners. A pensions increase was awarded last November, and, unless something is done soon, the effect of the pensions increase on them could be that they would lose a good part of it through a reduced rate rebate. That would be very undesirable, and so the order is designed to hold the position.
This is a purely Scottish order. A similar order will be laid for England and Wales at a later date. Perhaps I should explain why the timing of the Scottish order has to be earlier.
It goes back ultimately to the fact that the rating years are different north and south of the Border. This affects the periods over which rebates are paid, and also the prior periods over which income is assessed for the purpose of determining rebate. For the rate rebate period beginning in Scotland in May of this year, income is assessed over a six month period from October 1969 to April of this year. Income in that period will have been strongly influenced, so far as pensioners are concerned, by the pensions

increase awarded in November. In England and Wales the effect will not be felt until next October, so that a later order is appropriate there.
Now as to the amount of the increase. The income limit for a single person is raised by this order from £9 to £10 a week, and for a married couple from £11 to £12 5s. a week. This matches very closely the pensions increase. The provision for each resident child remains unchanged at £2 a week. I should emphasise that these are not absolute limits, above which no rebate is paid at all: they represent the point at which the benefit begins to taper off—I think that it is 5s. for every £1 of excess income.
Perhaps hon. Members will be inclined to ask: why have the limits not been put up further, so as to bring more people into the scheme? Here it is important to be clear what the rebate scheme is and what it is not. It does not pretend in any way to be a social security or social welfare scheme: it is only a way of taking the rough edge off the rating system, which, as we all recognise, bears hardly on the householder of limited means. That was the stated object of the provisions in the Rating Act 1966 and the income limits as fixed in the Act. All we are seeking to do now is to keep in benefit the same people whom the scheme was originally designed to help, and has helped since it was introduced.
We should all like to see the drawbacks of the rating system not merely relieved but removed: and in the Green Paper on local government finance which will be coming out later this year we shall be taking an entirely fresh look at all the aspects of the rating system. Meanwhile, through the domestic element of rate support grant, which reduces domestic rates in Scotland to a figure 2s. 6d. in the £ below what it would otherwise be, and through the scheme we are now considering, we are doing our best to shield the hard-pressed householder from the worst effects.
If this order is passed, the number of recipients of rate rebate in Scotland can be expected to remain at the present figure; that is, about 95,000. If the order is not passed, the number of recipients is likely to drop to about 85,000, and some of those 85,000 would have their present amounts of rate rebate


reduced. That, I think, sufficiently makes the case for the order.
Now as to the cost of the order. The rate rebate scheme is financed three-quarters by direct grant from the Exchequer and one-quarter from the rates. The order will not materially add to the present costs, because it is concerned not with the amount of benefit paid—that is determined by a formula laid down in the Rating Act itself—but with the level of qualification for benefit. Neither the taxpayer nor the ratepayer will lose, to any measurable degree, by the passing of the order. It is true that if the order is not passed there would be a total saving of about £200,000 a year. That would be wholly unintended, and the wrong type of saving would be obtained by cutting deserving claimants out of benefit. So we are preserving the position for the people involved despite the fact that their pensions have been increased.
On the matter of timing, the order affects rate rebates for the period from May onwards but application for rebate can be made as early as 16th March. That is why it is proposed that the order should come into operation ahead of the actual rebate period. If it is approved, we shall arrange for the necessary publicity as soon as possible.
I commend the draft Order to the House. In its modest way it is a humane measure and will make life easier for a good number of the less well off amongst us. It may seem to us a small measure but to many people it is a very big measure.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I congratulate the Government on producing the Order. A short discussion is justified because it will help to publicise the facilities contained in the scheme. As the Secretary of State has said, this is really only maintaining the position which was introduced by the Rating Act 1966.
I begin with one word of criticism. I have had to rely on Command Paper No. 3815 for the year 1967–68 in order to get any information on this. I do not think that there has been a later publication, and I ask "Why not?". I do not know what the intention was or

what was contained in the Act but it seems odd that a matter of such political significance, one which is entirely in our favour, should be ignored by the Government in their attempt to publicise this scheme. Therefore, some of the observation that hon. Members might have to make on this on a factual basis will inevitably be dated.
I am disturbed because when the scheme was introduced, according to the Command Paper to which I have referred, the number involved in Scotland was 113,205. The figure has now dropped, according to my right hon. Friend, to 95,000, and it seems to me that we require a little more examination and explanation as to why there has been this drop.
It is interesting that for Scotland as a whole the percentage of domestic householders taking advantage of the scheme is 5·1, but inevitably there are tremendous variations in the percentages in each of the local authority samples which are given. For example, Glasgow has about the average of 5 per cent. It is not because I have some regard for the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) that I point out that the higher percentages are in Cullen Findochty and Portknockie. I am not suggesting that these are major areas with heavy population, but the percentages of domestic householders enjoying the rate rebate in those areas are all over 21 per cent., which contrasts strangely with a large city like Glasgow. I know there are all sorts of imponderables coming into this, but it requires a little examination and investigation.
It is with these points in mind that I suggest to my right hon. Friend not only that much more publicity should be given to the advantages of the scheme but that a report should be prepared for hon. Members so that we can draw the scheme to the attention of laggard authorities.
One other practical point that I am concerned about is that the Secretary of State said that 75 per cent. of all recipients were retired. It may well be that this was a section of the community that the scheme was intended for. But it strikes me as a little disturbing that the figure should be so high among retired people, and obviously there is a low take-up by low-paid wage earners. I am sure—and this may be the experience of many hon. Members that somehow or


other a widow, or perhaps a deserted married woman, because she is working is sometimes completely unaware of the fact that she is eligible for rate rebate.
We need a lot more information on whether the people who could benefit from the scheme are aware of it. They may not be aware of it simply because they are working and do not come into the normal category of persons who might be more aware of it because they are claiming rent rebates.
Second, although I know this is a difficult subject, has any attempt been made by the Secretary of State to harmonise—and I am not sure whether he would have powers under the Act to do this—the level of the qualification figure with some of the rent rebate schemes operating in local authorities?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been listening to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) carefully and have given him some latitude. But he cannot discuss rate rebate schemes in general or the working of the present system. The hon. Gentleman can only discuss the increases proposed under this Order.

Mr. Brown: I should have mentioned in my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am dealing with the Order in so far as it increases the qualifying limit from £11 to £12 5s. a week and continues the benefit rate for a child of £2 a week. It seems to me quite in order—and I do not mean this to challenge your Ruling at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and quite appropriate in looking at the cost involved in this Order, that we should look at the attempts to publicise the availability of this service and see whether it cannot be linked to the rent rebate schemes of local authorities.
I defy any hon. Member to sit down with an application form for this rate rebate scheme and for a rent rebate scheme and work out whether it is of more advantage to the person to claim both those benefits or to claim supplementary benefit. This is the matter in which I think the Government are required to make some inquiries and examination.
Finally, what publicity steps are to be taken? Is enough work done for the individual? The Command Paper says that notices are stuck up in post offices

and other public places where people go. But I doubt very much whether people read the notices stuck up in post offices, for example. Is enough done to make use of the groups which are available—the Old Age Pensioners' Associations and the Tenants Associations, for example? In this age of participation, it strikes me that we are a little laggard in encouraging local authorities to take advantage of the community associations which are in existence.
I commend the Order to the House. It is one of the most practical proposals that have been before this House, and certainly there is a lot for pensioners and for non-pensioners in it. Unlike hon. Members opposite—I do not want to be personal—who keep parading the hardship of non-pensioners, the Government have found a practical way of giving help to a group in the community which should have been helped long before 1964. For all those reasons, provided that we make some attempt to bring in some of the low-paid wage earners, I support the Order.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I give a very warm welcome to the Order. It comes at a very appropriate moment for me as a constituency Member. I was approached only on Saturday on this matter by a lady in my constituency. She and her husband had applied for a rate rebate, and because their joint income was slightly above the £11 limit they had been turned down. It is a particularly tragic case and must be typical of many.
Less than a year ago, the husband developed multiple sclerosis and had to give up work. For the best part of a year the wife continued to work, and their income from her earnings and his sickness benefit brought in from £13 to £14 a week. But, with the advance of the husband's illness, the wife has had to give up work in order to stay at home and look after him the whole day. Their joint income from sickness and unemployment benefit comes to barely above the £11 mark and, as I have said, they have been turned down for the present rate rebate. This Order will come as a godsend to them.
There must be many others like them. Indeed, apparently about 11,000 more people will benefit by the Order. I


welcome it very warmly indeed and hope that it goes through without opposition.

8.32 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I, too, welcome the Order very much. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, it takes into account the rises in benefits—pensions, sickness benefits and the rest. Although my right hon. Friend at this stage does not expect many more old people to make application for rate rebates because of this increase, it is possible that others, the low wage earners, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) is so concerned, may find themselves able, under the new scales, to claim rebate.
It is of the greatest importance that the utmost publicity be given to this scheme. I am glad that 95,000 families are benefiting under the scheme. I understand that 75 per cent. of them are elderly people. Amongst those elderly people are people with small fixed incomes with perhaps no State pension. These people are finding the rebate scheme of inestimable value.
These, the non-pensioners, are the very people for whom the Government have done so much. The Government have helped them by this scheme. I still get letters from all over Britain from elderly people who were left completely out in the cold when the Conservatives were in power. Within the last few weeks, old people I have never met have written to me saying what a different kind of life they are having now. These non-pensioners are getting a supplementary pension and they are getting it for the first time because of the changes brought about by the present Government.
All of us should show the very greatest concern for old people in our community, and anything more than can be done to help them is of the greatest importance. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) wish to interrupt?

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I was observing to one of my hon. Friends; what about the over-80s without a pension?

Miss Herbison: Miss Herbison rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The subject of this Order is the increases that it includes and not, I am afraid, a discussion on the general aspects of rate rebates.

Miss Herbison: I believe that within the general order I shall be able to answer the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Ian MacArthur) who has been sitting there listening, and must really be in cloud-cuckoo-land, because all of my last remarks were directed towards the non-pensioners, the over-80s who under his own Government got no help at all, only cold comfort.

Mr. MacArthur: Would the right hon. Lady give way? They will receive a pension as of right from the next Conservative Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is going much too wide of the order. I must bring the right hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman back to order.

Miss Herbison: The same old people could say to the hon. Gentleman, "Lead an old horse and you will get corn"—and that is what they had to do with hon. Members opposite. Does not the hon. Gentleman who interrupted really know the very great help in pensions as a right that these over-80s are getting Many of them under this Order—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we get another intervention I must insist that we come back to the Order.

Miss Herbison: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that was just exactly what I was going to do. I was coming back to this order which raises the amount for the single old person or single young person from £9 to £10 a week.
This will help some of the old people, non-pensioners living on a small fixed income. More of them might be brought in under this scheme. I would hope it will also help old couples by raising their amount to £12 5s. My hon. Friend the Member for Provan wondered whether old or chronic sick people or low wage earners really knew what their rights were under this scheme. He wondered whether some old people were able to weigh up whether it was better for them to take a rate rebate under this scheme—and some of them may have to do it all over again because of the


amount being raised from £9 to £10, and for the couple to £12 5s.,—or to take a supplementary pension.
One of the things which officers from the Ministry of Social Security, who are excellent people, were asked to do was to discuss with the old people this very problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Provan raised in order to ensure that old persons took whichever was the better for them, a supplementary pension and no rate rebate or a rate rebate and no supplementary pension. I hope that this will be used much more often than it has been to ensure that under this Order old people get all the benefit from it that they possibly can.
My hon. Friend mentioned a figure of 5·1 per cent. of families and gave some figures for the northern part of Scotland. It may be that in the northern part of Scotland we have a higher proportion of old retired people but the difference between 5 per cent. and 20 per cent. is so great that that cannot be the whole answer. I hope, therefore, that now when we are publicising these new rates in this order the Secretary of State will take every possible step to get publicity on this home to people in every area in Scotland, and not only to our old people but to our low wage earners.
Some of the less responsible sections of the Press sometimes give the impression that we are a nation of malingerers. The statistics prove that this is not so. The survey I had conducted showed that there were 140,000 families in which the fathers—low wage earners in full-time employment, proud to be working for their families—were earning less than the National Assistance scale. We want to help such men and their families with the Order. The Order, by raising the limits to £12 5s. for husband and wife with £2 for children, will help many more families where the father is in work.
The vast majority of our people are decent. I hope that there will be the widest possible publicity to this extension of the limits so that people who are decent and want to work can be helped. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the new figures. This is another example of the care that this Government show for the people who desperately need it.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Adam Hunter: I add my welcome to the order.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing the Order so soon after the parliamentary Answer a few weeks ago in which he gave notice of the new limits. These will be of great advantage to many people in Scotland.
I have in mind many retirement pensioners whose income is much higher than that which allows them to receive benefit at the moment. When the pensions were increased last November, these people were worried that it would be much more difficult for them to obtain benefits under the rebate scheme. The Order will ensure that these people are brought into the scheme.
I am interested in many types of retirement pensioner. There are a number of miners who were in the principal scheme for mineworkers' pensions and who are well beyond the limit for receiving supplementary benefit. However, some of them were only marginally above the limit for receiving help under the, rate rebate scheme. The Order will bring them within the scheme.
I have in mind also single women who are householders and live alone. In my area many such single women earn very low wages and claim under this scheme.
I agree that the scheme should be publicised much more widely, because many people do not realise that if they are only marginally outside the limits they can claim something. Local authorities should institute publicity schemes to acquaint people of their rights.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I, too, as glad that it has been possible to introduce the Order at this time. Despite all the talk about reducing public spending and the squeeze, the evidence is that the Government—shall I say "our Government"—can still look with a great deal of sensitivity at those areas where the need is greatest. It will be generally agreed that those on very low incomes are those who should be helped first.
I accept that often a person on a very low income does not know that he can claim a rate rebate. Therefore, the scheme should be publicised as widely as possible. I am particularly glad that it has been possible to raise these limits


in face of all the pressures which are extant today and the widespread clamour, which perhaps comes most stridently from right hon. and hon. Members opposite, to curtail public spending. This is an example of the type of public spending which should be stepped up because of the advantages which accrue to so many of those who most deserve assistance.
I should like my right hon. Friend to give me a little information about how the scheme as a whole is working. It is perhaps not generally known that whereas in England and Wales anyone who is on supplementary benefit cannot normally claim under the scheme, this is not the case in Scotland. Or perhaps I should say that provision has been made in Scotland whereby a local authority can operate a scheme of its own and so cover those who are in receipt of supplementation.
I know that in my area of Motherwell those who are on supplementation and are receiving money in lieu of rates as well as rent can, in certain circumstances, obtain advantages from our local scheme, and if my right hon. Friend——

Mr. Adam Hunter: Does my hon. Friend agree that Lanarkshire is the only county in Scotland which does this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I must tell the hon. Member that the Minister will be in order only if he relates his remarks to the increases set out in the Order.

Mr. Lawson: This is a matter which bears closely upon the choice which people can make, but I should not dream of trying to stray beyond the bounds of order.
We on this side of the House try to inform people about how they might fare better under one scheme rather than under another, and it is in order to help people decide whether they are faring better under one scheme rather than under another that I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us how many authorities operate the other scheme. I do not know whether any authorities, apart from Motherwell, does so. If they do, I shall be happy to know that that is so. I know the battle which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson)

had to give local authorities in Scotland the right to continue the type of scheme which they were operating, and I hope that we can be given some information on how it is operating now.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I shall not be tempted to follow the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) into the wider issues of the over-80s. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) for putting the record straight with regard to the Conservative Party's commitment to assist these people. I accept the right hon. Lady's point that they will be helped by the Order.
I welcome the Order, and I welcome, too, the opportunity, which we did not have on the last occasion the Order was debated, to discuss it in relation to Scotland alone. This has given many more hon. Members an opportunity to take part in the debate.
I am glad that we are able to assist people in the lower income groups, because, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said, this is the right principle on which to work. We are giving help where it is most needed. This is a principle which many of us would like to see extended beyond schemes such as this.
I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member for Provan said about the need to simplify the different ways in which those who are less well off can benefit from schemes of this nature. Very often people find it difficult to understand the multiplicity of forms that are used, and, despite the help given by officers of the social security services, to decide what they should claim, and what will give them the best benefit. I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State say that this factor would be taken into account in the whole review of rating. I hope that he will take to heart what has been said this evening about the need to simplify the different schemes under which people can benefit. The Order takes account of the increase in pensions. If the Order had not been introduced fewer people would have qualified for rate rebates, and the pension increase would have been nullified.
We are not thinking only of pensioners; we must be concerned also about the low wage-earner with a large family. It is not just a question of an increase in pensions and making sure the benefit is passed on. The Secretary of State takes credit for increasing the limits at which a person qualifies. Let him also remember that, since we debated the last order in June, 1968, there has been a rise in the cost of living and the Index of Retail Prices has gone up by 8 per cent. It is necessary to make certain that the increase in benefit is worth while and also to take account of the rate at which the cost of living has increased under the policies of the Government.
The Secretary of State said that the order takes the rough edge off the rating system. Well might he use those words. In answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State said that in 1968–69 rates in Scotland went up on average by 9d. in the £. In 1969–70 it looks as though the rate poundage will be up by 1s. 4d. in the £. We must view the Order not merely against a background of the increase in pensions but against the increased costs which have to be borne by those whom we hope the Order will benefit. The Government are responsible in many ways for putting an extra burden on the people they are trying to help by the Order.
I find it difficult to balance the increased benefit from the Order against the increased burdens which people have to bear. Will the Secretary of State give us this information in real terms? How do the people who qualify for rate rebate under the Order compare with the people in 1966 when these provisions were first introduced, and in 1968 when the last Order was passed?
May I reinforce what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said. It would be helpful when we debate the Order to have before us a report on how the scheme is working. The last report was produced in November, 1968, for the year 1967–68, and we might reasonably have expected a report for 1968–69 to have been in our hands in November last year. This would have helped us in debating the Order.
I should like to know why there is such a great variation in the numbers of those

who will qualify for rebate in one part of Scotland or another and what research has been made into the matter? It is most important that those who qualify for rebate should know how to apply for it. It is important—and I know that local authorities are alive to this matter—to know what further ideas the Secretary of State has on giving due publicity to this order to make certain that those who qualify will get the benefit of the rebate. All those who need assistance should get it. Therefore, I am pleased to support the Order.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I cannot complain about how the House has received the Order. It has been given a very general welcome indeed. I only wish that when I was sitting on that side of the House I had been in a position to get up and congratulate the Government of the day. The fact is that the rise in the cost of living did not start in October, 1964, nor did the rise in rates. But for all those long years hon. Members opposite had no thought of introducing a scheme by which they could relieve those who were hard hit.
This matter is related not to the cost of living but to the increase in pensions. Bearing in mind that we have increased pensions three times in the last five and a half years, indeed in less than that period of time, as against the number of pensions increases in the 13 years of office of the Conservative Government, and bearing in mind the increase in the value of the pension, I would have blushed for shame had I been trying to put the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman tonight. When the hon. Gentleman talked about a rise in rates, he should have known that, such is the flexibility of the formula, the effect of this rate rebate scheme is that automatically two-thirds of any change is covered by rebate.
I now come to the points which have been raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) mentioned the White Paper on this matter, which he will remember is not an annual publication but appeared two years after the scheme began. A full explanation was given of the scheme and all that had been done, and the figures were given. I agree that these figures should be given every year.


It is our intention to produce, not as detailed a paper as that White Paper, but a document giving statistics to show how things are moving and to enable us to see whether or not we are meeting the needs of those faced with hardship.
My hon. Friend said that there would be variations between one area of the country and another, and cited the situation in Banff compared with that in Glasgow. He will find the relevant explanations in the White Paper. Rate burdens are different in certain parts of the country, and it may be that in Banff the rate burdens are relatively high. From that point of view there may be more people there who will gain from this scheme. Then again the situation may be related to wages or supplementary pension. There are, of course, alternative ways of helping those in need. If help is given in supplementary benefit schemes, then those concerned will not normally get help under this scheme. When my hon. Friend quotes a figure of 5 per cent. for Glasgow, it may conceal a higher number who get help through social security, whereas in Banff this would comprise a smaller number. It is very difficult to generalise, and one has to appreciate the circumstances in the various areas.
There is the other point, and this brings us to the need for publicity and an understanding of the scheme. It is a relatively simple one and it should be easy to get it across to people. However, the people to whom we want to get it across are not necessarily those who are more readily able to understand it. People who are 80 years of age are more likely to become confused and more likely to be a little stubborn about accepting help. From that point of view, I appreciate that we have to work at getting it across, and considerable attention was paid to that right at the start. Even when we had about 113,000 applications, we did not think that we had reached all those who could be helped. Certainly we shall do all that we can to ensure that publicity is given to the scheme.
I know that members and officials of local authorities know the benefits that it has brought. I remember talking to the town chamberlain of a burgh in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). He thought that the

scheme had been a godsend in his area. His is not a town which one associates with slums. It is one which is associated with people who have gone there to retire. They live on and on, and their incomes tend to remain fixed. They are the sort of people who have benefited from the scheme. Many of them are owner-occupiers. That is one reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite should be a little less grudging about the scheme—[Interruption.] Yes, they damn it with faint praise and say how well they will do in the next 100 years when they become the Government again.
The scheme has met a need among a category of people who were left out before. The benefits are tremendous, and I intend to make sure that everything will be done to give the scheme widespread publicity. Hon. Members can help a great deal, and I hope that the kind of publicity that we get from this debate will assist in that direction. Quite a lot is done through the voluntary organisations, and we have material which can be made available to assist them. Then there are old people's committees in the towns, meals on wheels, health visitors and others who are in touch with the very categories of people who need help, and they can be encouraged to spread the information about the scheme.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who has done so much in this and other aspects of social security, was right to mention that it concerned not just pensioners but low-paid workers as well. It is not just a matter of the £12 5s. There is also the £2 per resident child.
I would like to comment on the attempt to harmonise the levels of rent rebate and rate rebate and much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) raised. However, it would be out of order to do that, and I have never been one to stray out of order. I got the impression that there was no burgh like Motherwell for looking after those who need help. My hon. Friend should come to Kilmarnock and see how we treat our people there.

Miss Herbison: I cannot allow my right hon. Friend to get away with mentioning only Motherwell. Lanarkshire county gives a special rebate as well, especially to old people who are in receipt of supplementary benefit.

Mr. Ross: Yes, but this is not a joint scheme. It is an alternative scheme. It is a matter of choice. I do not want to embark on a long speech about that.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) instanced the kind of case that would suffer if we did not take this action. I am glad to have his assurance of the extent to which it has been welcomed.
The same matter was drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter). There are those people—they may be pensioners, single people or people on fixed incomes—who are marginally outside any other help. This has been a godsend to them for meeting one part of an inevitable expenditure.
I am glad that the House has welcomed the Order. I shall honour the pledge about publicity and also about getting annual information so that the House can be kept up to date on how the uptake proceeds.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) (Scotland) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before the House on 4th February, be approved.

CENSUS ORDER 1970

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Before calling on the hon. Gentleman to move the Motion. I ought to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is both a Motion and a Prayer relating to the Census Order, 1970. I, therefore, propose to follow a recent precedent—HANSARD, 18th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 1617—and suggest that both should be discussed together. In that case I would allow the scope of the debate to be wide enough to cover both the Motion for the affirmative Resolution and the Prayer. If necessary, I would be prepared to allow the House to divide on each Motion separately. But if the hour of 11.30 is passed and the debate is still continuing, I will only be able to put the Motion for the affirmative Resolution, and the Prayer will fall and cannot be carried over to any subsequent day. I hope that this course will be acceptable to the House as it was on previous occasions.

9.7 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): Thank you for your helpful Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I beg to move,
That items 2, 7, 8, 10, the words in item 11(a) 'and the month and the year of birth of each such child', 11(b) and (c), 12, 13, 14(a)(vii) and (viii), 15, 18, and 19 in Schedule 2 to the draft of the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order 1970, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
The draft order providing for the taking of a census of the population of Great Britain in 1971 has been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the Census Act, 1920. The order, as a whole, is subject to negative resolution, but the Act requires that if there are any items of information which are wanted in the census returns but not specifically mentioned in the Act, the parts of the Order relating to them shall be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. There are 12 such items in this draft order, and these are the subjects of my right hon. Friend's motion.
But we now have the opportunity to debate the order in full because of the Motion standing in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I propose therefore to say something about the general provisions of the draft Order before turning to particulars which require affirmative Resolution.
In accordance with the Act of 1920 the Order prescribes the date on which the census is to be held, the persons to be included in it, the persons who will be responsible for making the returns, and particulars to be given in the returns. Other matters concerned with the details of the arrangements for carrying out the census have to be prescribed in regulations, and these will be laid before Parliament at a later date; the regulations, which will be subject only to negative resolution, will contain facsimiles of the actual forms of return which it is proposed to use.
First, I should like to say some things about the date proposed for the census, which is 25th April, 1971. There have been censuses of population in Great Britain at ten-yearly intervals since 1801—with the exception of 1941, on account of the Second World War. Since 1961,


however, mainly because of the greater mobility of the population—of whom about 10 per cent. now move house every year—and the consequent rapidity with which census figures for local areas become out-of-date, the ten-year interval has been accepted as too long, and, as hon. Members will recall, it was decided in 1963 to hold a mid-decade census in 1966, using a 10 per cent. sample of the population only.
The need for a further census after five years is just as great now as it was then, and we must therefore hold a census in 1971, which is, under the Census Act, 1920, the earliest year in which a census could be taken again. By holding a census in 1971 we shall maintain the 10-yearly series, and therefore be able to make direct comparisons between the changes occurring in the period from 1961 to 1971 and those occurring in previous ten-year periods.
The choice of Sunday 25th April is in line with past practice. Sunday night is the night of the week when most people are at home, and April is a time of year when most holiday movement has not yet started but when the lighter evenings, combined with better weather prospects than earlier in the year, can be expected to help the enumerators in their task. 25th April is the corresponding Sunday to those on which the 1961 and 1966 censuses were held and is well clear of the Easter weekend.
Hon. Members will next wish to know about the type of census which it is proposed to conduct. The draft order provides for a count to be made of the entire population in Great Britain and for all the relevant questions to be asked in respect of everyone. Although it was found sufficient to conduct the 1966 mid-decade census on a sample basis, the sampling procedure depended on the complete count having been taken only five years previously. It would not be practicable to repeat this procedure on the basis of a full count that will be ten years out of date. In particular the annual estimates of the population of local authority areas, based upon census figures, will by 1971 require the full correction that will be provided by a complete count of heads.
The advantages of obtaining answers to all the census questions in respect of

all the people, as opposed to asking some of them on special sample questionnaires, as was done in 1961, is that it enables us to produce accurate figures relating to particular groups of the population, even if they form a small proportion of the whole. For example, information is needed on highly qualified manpower, who constitute a very small section of the total population; the information needed is not just the qualifications held by these people but also their current occupations, their ages and other items included on the form.
Another example is the members of the immigrant communities, for whom we shall be concerned to have figures showing what progress has been made in providing adequate housing and education and in assimilating them into the employment structure. But we do not just need the full picture in relation to minority groups of the population; by asking all the census questions of everyone we shall make it possible to carry out special studies of particular areas of the country. A sample census is of limited usefulness where small administrative areas are involved.
Turning now to the proposed contents of the census forms, the particulars to be asked for are listed in Schedule 2 to the draft Order. They are set out there in a manner consistent with the legal nature of the Schedule and as concisely as possible, but the actual questions will appear on the forms in more everyday language, and there will be notes to help people understand how particular questions apply to them.

Mr. Antony Buck: May I take it that there will be regulations following this Order and setting out these matters in greater detail?

Dr. Dunwoody: I said that there will be regulations at a later date, and there will be a facsimile of the census form.
The basic purpose of the census is, of course, to provide statistics on the size and structure of the population by areas, but the proposed questions will give information on a wide range of other topics of concern to Government Departments, local and regional planners and those engaged in many fields of social and economic research. The census is a major source of information in the fields of housing, employment and education. For


the provision of these services reliable and up-to-date statistics are essential.
Planners and others look to the census for information on migration patterns and the demands for road space and transport facilities. Information on the trends in population change is a basic requirement for making population projections, on which, in turn, so much of forward planning of all kinds depends.
There have been many other items which have been suggested for inclusion in the census but which have had to be omitted. Some of these were unsuitable for an operation such as the census in which the information is obtained by means of forms filled in by householders. There have also been other matters on which it would have been desirable to include questions if room had permitted, but we must keep the form to a manageable size.
Regard must be paid to the burden which the census places on householders and it was found, in the course of testing out a proposed form of questionnaire, that the range of questions included on that form would need to be reduced. Of course, making that reduction has meant sacrificing some of the useful information which it had been hoped the census could provide. The final list, in Schedule 2 of the order, represents a set of questions which will be only slightly greater than that of the 1966 census, and which experience tells us is not an impracticable one for members of the public to cope with.
We are grateful to all those members of the public who, in various parts of the country, took part in the test censuses held in 1968 and 1969 and have, by doing so, greatly helped us to formulate the proposals for the census.
I come to the items which are subject to affirmative Resolution. The first of these relates to the relationship of each member of a household, to the head of the household or to a person's position in an institution or establishment. These are customary questions in a census but are subject to Resolution because they are not specified in these precise terms in the Census Act, which mentions only relation to head of family.
Relationship to head of household enables us to produce statistics on the composition of private households; position in an institution or establishment is required in premises other than in

private dwellings for the purposes of interpreting the census forms and distinguishing between, say, the staff and the patients of a hospital.
The second and third items relate to new questions which have not been included in previous census. They will be of particular use in enabling us to produce from the census the information which is needed about progress in meeting the special needs of immigrant groups, in particular enabling us to produce basic data about the different immigrant groups: numbers, age-groups, areas of residence and occupations. This will apply to all immigrant groups, whatever their country of origin, and this data will be important both in terms of planning in the sphere of community relations and as a background against which the effect of existing policies is decided.
The proposed question on year of entry into the United Kingdom is necessary for the purpose of studying the time element in the process of assimilating immigrants to the general national standards in, for example, employment and housing. With the same purposes in view, the proposal to ask a question on the countries of birth of a person's parents will help to identify the numbers of people born in this country to immigrant parents. There are also a significant number of people born overseas to British parents who can, by means of this new question, be excluded from the count of immigrants.
The next item is concerned with people's addresses at earlier dates; that is, at a date one year and a date five years before the census. This will make it possible to measure the extent and characteristics of population movements both into Great Britain and within the country. The measurements of internal migration are essential for local population forecasts on which a wide range of planning work depends. This subject was first introduced into the 1961 census, and repeated in 1966 when the questions were virtually identical to those now proposed.
As in 1961, questions are being asked of married or formerly married women concerning the dates at which they first married, and also when their first marriage ended, if it has ended, and about the children born alive to them in marriage. This time, however, instead of asking merely for the total number of


children born in marriage, women will be asked for the date of birth of each child. The need for this stems from our recognition of the fundamental importance of accurately assessing present trends in fertility, with particular emphasis on the spacing of births as well as their total number.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: How will the Department get this information when the question is being asked only of married women, which the Department is only entitled to do under the Act? Women who are not married are surely equally relevant in this connection.

Dr. Dunwoody: I am coming to that point. As in 1961, questions are being asked of married or formerly married women concerning the dates on which they were first married. To avoid asking about matters which some people would be unwilling to record, the question does not refer to illegitimate births. The point raised by the hon. Member is what we are interested in, the patterns of married women which can be demonstrated effectively. Also, in order to simplify the questionnaire for older people, the questions on fertility have been confined to women who will be under 60 on the census day. Neither of these limitations will seriously detract from the value of the information obtained.
The next few items are concerned with education. It is proposed to ask whether a person will be a full-time student in the ensuing academic term; this information has been obtained in previous censuses and is needed to supplement the particulars of current employment in order to identify those who are working only temporarily at the time of the census and do not therefore form part of the normally available labour force. As the census will be taken in April, there may be a substantial number of students on vacation work at that time.
A new question is proposed concerning educational attainments of the standard of G.C.E. "A" levels and its Scottish equivalents. This replaces a question asked in the 1961 census on the age at which full-time education was terminated but is intended to serve the same purpose as far as those not proceeding beyond the secondary school stage is concerned; it will provide figures for use in planning

the provision of educational facilities and by cross-tabulation with data on occupations, etc. will help in estimating the return on the investment in education.
The answers to this question will supplement the information obtained under the next heading, which relates to higher educational, professional and vocational qualifications. This heading covers qualifications obtained after the age of 18, at first degree level and above, including those awarded by professional institutions; information concerning people with these qualifications is becoming much more important for planning purposes in the field of further education and in connection with the economic deployment of highly qualified manpower. The question also covers specific vocational qualifications, in particular those of teachers and nurses, because there is a continual need for information on the number of people qualified in these fields but not currently employed in them. This question on degrees and other attainments since the age of 18 is not a new one; the same information was obtained in the 1966 census, and there was a similar question in 1961 which was restricted to qualifications in science and technology. What is new in the present proposal is the inclusion of the names of the institutions which awarded the qualifications among the particulars asked for; the purpose of this addition is simply to improve the classification of qualifications to their appropriate levels.
Questions on employment have featured in many previous censuses and are specifically mentioned in the Act. Only two items among the present proposals on this subject require affirmative resolution. Firstly it is proposed to repeat the 1966 question on the main means of transport used by people travelling to their places of work. With the continuing increase in commuter traffic, there is a strong demand, particularly among authorities in the conurbations, for detailed analyses of the kind produced from the 1966 census, in which information on means of transport was correlated with that on area of residence and area of workplace.
A new item concerns a person's occupation one year prior to the census. This is a straightforward question which will give information for cross-tabulation with


particulars of the current occupation and thus enable analyses to be made of movements between occupations.
The last three questions referred to in the motion are among those which will be put to heads of private households only. It is proposed that a question on housing tenure, asked in 1961 and 1966, should be repeated. This will provide information concerning the extent to which private householders own their accommodation, rent it from local councils or rent it—either furnished or unfurnished—from private landlords.
A further proposal requiring the approval of the House concerns a series of straightforward questions about the availability and sharing of certain amenities on the same lines as questions asked on the past two occasions. The amenities concerned are cookers, sinks, piped hot water, baths and showers, and lavatories. Information concerning each of these is required as an indicator of progress in meeting housing needs; analyses produced from it are important for the formulation of national and local housing policy.
The last item concerns a question on the number of private cars which was introduced in the 1966 census and which it is proposed to repeat in a slightly modified form. To those concerned with town planning and the solution of traffic problems the value of a count of the cars in private use is that this provides a measure of the demand for space on the roads which is not limited, as the question on transport to work would be, to those used for commuting purposes. In addition to this use the question will provide data which can be correlated with other household characteristics such as socio-economic group, which can be derived from the census.
This brings me to the end of the list of items referred to in the Motion. I have indicated which of them relate to questions being introduced for the first time into a census, and I would now like to refer briefly to the other new items. It is proposed to supplement the customary question on a person's occupation by asking also for a short description of the work done in that occupation, to help in classifying the job properly. There is a question on normal hours worked in a person's job which extends the question asked previously only of

part-time workers to all in employment. Another proposal concerns the identification of households living in structurally separate dwellings and those whose accommodation is not self-contained; in this connection it is proposed to ask a question about the sharing of rooms, halls and landings on the form, whereas in the past it has been the practice to leave this task of classifying the accommodation entirely to the enumerator.
Hon. Members will see at the end of Schedule 2 to the draft Order that it is planned to ask questions about the speaking of the Welsh language in Wales and the Gaelic language in Scotland. Census information on these languages was last collected in 1961. On this occasion there are new items concerned with people's ability to read and write these languages.
Having mentioned these new items I would like to point out that there are a number of questions asked in the past which have been omitted from the proposals this time. For example, a person with more than one job will not be asked—as he was in 1966—for details of his second job. Questions on the age at which a person's full-time education ended, and on that of garaging of cars have also been dropped. I mention this lest hon. Members should get the impression that the increase in the length of the census form will be greater than is in fact the case.
I referred earlier to the tests which the General Register Office has carried out. All the new questions have been tried out by that means, but there is one which was tested and has been omitted but on which I have something to say. I want to say something on the question of income, on which the need for information has been strongly pressed by almost all users of census results. Local authorities, regional planners and central Government require information on the relative wealth of different areas, so that services can be planned to meet local needs and economic aid can be directed to the places where it is most necessary. At the national level income statistics would serve to identify more reliably those sections of the population in which genuine poverty exists.
It is true that the Inland Revenue compiles statistics on income distribution, but these statistics do not enable income to be related to data on the other subjects


covered by the census, nor do they provide the complete picture of the incomes insufficient to attract tax, where much of the interest in income statistics is concentrated. Both the General Register Office and the Inland Revenue are debarred by the rules regarding confidentiality from collating the separate records which they hold on an individual basis.
There was thus a strong case for investigating in the test programme the practicability of including a question on income in the census questionnaire. However, in the course of trying out the questions two particular obstacles were encountered. Not unexpectedly the test results highlighted the difficulty of wording a question in a suitable manner to deal adequately with the complexities of income within the confines of the space available on a census form. There was also some evidence of public opposition to the question—less than was expected, but still sufficient to be taken into account, because of our wish to avoid asking any questions which even a minority of the public might find objectionable.
But the value of obtaining income data for cross-tabulation with other census characteristics is undoubted. It is therefore proposed to conduct a separate voluntary income survey of a comparatively small sample of households immediately after the census. Questions will be sent by post to 1 per cent. of households. There will be a separate form for each person, and the forms will be returned by those who are willing to respond, direct to the census office. Because participation in this survey will be entirely voluntary, it does not require legislation and is not therefore among the proposals to which I am now seeking the approval of the House. I have referred to the increasing demand for information from the census, but if it is to have its full value this information must be made available as soon as possible after the census has been taken. There was a marked improvement in this respect in the 1966 census as compared with previous censuses, but our aim is to reduce the time taken to produce the main results still further and to achieve the two-year target set for this. To this end, and bearing in mind that data relating to the whole population and not only to a

10 per cent. sample will have to be handled this time, the General Register Office now has a computer of very much greater capacity than that used for the last census. This increased capacity will be used not only to speed up the results and to handle the larger volume of data but also to produce some advance tabulations which will be available within six to nine months of Census day.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the Minister give some information about the computer and whether the software is all ready for the analysis to be made?

Dr. Dunwoody: I will leave the details of the computer to my hon. Friend who will be answering the debate. This of course will be in addition to the usual report containing preliminary population figures produced within three months of a census being taken. I would like to say a word about the effect of our proposals on the members of the public who will be supplying the information. We realise very well that the taking of the census involves some invasion of people's privacy. But government, central and local, is under continual pressure to develop the social and other services, to improve the planning of the economy and to make sure of the right priorities in capital investment.
How can all this be done without having available the hard facts on which to work? The necessary information in many cases can only come from the private citizen. But this reliance on individuals to give their personal information in turn imposes a responsibility on us to create complete safeguards against any breaches of confidence when the information is collected and handled. These safeguards take the following form: we have made provision in the Census Order for anyone who does not wish to give information to the head of his household to make a separate return which he can hand to the enumerator himself. And if anyone making a return does not wish to disclose it to the person appointed as enumerator he will be able to send in the form direct to the local census officer.
Once the information has been received at the General Register Office it is not released in any form in which individual persons or households can be identified to any other Department of Government


or indeed to any other body. And there are of course penalties under the Census Act for disclosing or improperly using information given on the census form.
In a word, the census is a purely statistical operation. There is no danger of any breach of confidence. I think it important to emphasise this, so that people can be assured that they can safely give the particulars required. The success of the census must depend ultimately on the part played by members of the public and the care which they are willing to devote to the completion of the forms. I hope, too, that hon. Members will feel satisfied on this point and also that they will have the confidence which I have in the census plans which the draft order authorises.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that my Deputy in the Chair ruled earlier we are taking with this Order, which is an affirmative Order, the Prayer No. 4 on the Order Paper. If this debate lasts after 11.30 I will be unable to put the Prayer.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: The reason why the Prayer was put down by my hon. Friends and myself was to enable us to have the free-ranging debate, which we have been having. I would like to thank the Minister for the great meticulousness with which he has dealt with the Schedule. It has taken a certain amount of time and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him through the intricacies and details of Schedule 2. It is sufficient to say that we think the balance is about right.
Over the last decade or so there has been what I think might be described as a happy consensus between all three parties about this matter of the taking of a census to provide the essential and important information necessary for future estimates of development, particularly within the realms of housing, education and the public services. The need for a full census every 10 years and a mid-term one is illustrated by what the Miniser said when he repeated facts given earlier, that 10 per cent. of the population would appear to change its address each year. That came as a very surprising statistic to me when I first read it. It perhaps illustrates the changing character and fluidity of our society

today and emphasises the need for a census of this character.
The House has recently had its attention drawn, through the initiative of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) to the need for privacy and of the increasing public concern at the infringement of privacy. The hon. Gentleman's initiative caused the House to reflect on this and the Government announced that there would be a Commission to go into the whole matter. There is growing public concern about infringement of privacy and I regret to say, in the context of this public concern, that it is, I fear, just possible that there may be marginally less public acceptance of the taking of a full census than on past occasions. It seems to me necessary, in order to gain public support, that the strongest and the most emphatic assurances should be given about the utter confidentiality of the information supplied. As has been said in previous debates, the success of a census depends on public goodwill and co-operation.
The assistance in past years of the broadcasting service and the Press has been sought, and I imagine that this will be done again. Perhaps the Minister who is to wind up will deal with this aspect of the matter. The widest publicity must also be given to the fact, which was mentioned in passing by the Minister, that any person employed in the taking of a census who misuses information which he gains through being involved in the census will render himself liable to a penalty under Section 8(2) of the 1920 Act. These penalties are not inconsiderable. There is a penalty of two years' imprisonment—I think in the original Act it was of penal servitude—combined with an unlimited fine or, alternatively an unlimited fine. I was wondering whether it would be correct to advocate increases in the basic penalty, but what is referred to in criminal circles as "two years inside" would appear to be sufficient. If the census is to be successful, this fact must be given publicity in order to ensure additional public confidence as to the confidentiality of the matter.
Further, it might be appropriate—and I hope it will be considered appropriate by the Minister—to give the House an exact account of what precisely will happen to the completed census returns after


they are gathered up on and after Monday, 21st April, 1971. What precisely does happen to them? Where do they go? What security precautions are taken all the time to see that they are kept under lock and key? It is essential at every stage to see that the information contained within the census forms is kept utterly confidential. This is a highly important matter in view of the increasing public concern about the citizen's right to privacy.
Publicity should also be given—and this again was a matter mentioned en passant by the Minister—to the rights of the individual conferred by paragraph 5(1) of the Order—that is the right of a person to make a personal return if he chooses, rather than that the return should be made by whoever is the nominal head of the household. This is an important right and when exercised precludes anybody else from making a return about that individual. This additional safeguard should also be given maximum publicity.
I notice with some interest that, in this census, it is not intended that additional information shall be provided from a sample proportion of the population. I was surprised by this, but I think that what the hon. Gentleman has said satisfied me on the point, particularly what he said about the voluntary censuses which there are to be about additional matters. It seems right that this should be an over all census for added simplicity.
What the hon. Gentleman had to say about the length of time before the results of the census become available was a little disappointing, although one commends the fact that the results in total will be available in two years compared with a period nearer three years in the past. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will respond to the request made to him by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for details concerning the computer which is to be used in processing the information.
Another matter is the question of the cost of the census. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us the additional cost because of the decision not to have a sample census. I welcome the fact that there is to be additional information, particularly as it is appropriate that we should have the additional information

provided for in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 2 which will require information to be given
In respect of any person not born in the United Kingdom…".
in that he is required to state the year of his first entry into the United Kingdom and give details of the country of birth of his father and mother. This information is especially necessary for those of us concerned particularly with matters relating to immigration.
There are some sensible Amendments in the order. It was an absurd requirement in the earlier censuses for details of the fecundity of ladies over 60. It was ridiculous to ask them to provide such information. One or two such details have rightly been eliminated this time.
We put down this Motion in order to enable a wide-ranging debate to be held. We shall view with interest in due course the pro forma of the census. Five years ago, in a debate on the subject of presentation, Mr. Geoffrey Howe, who, we hope, will be with us again before long—I am sure that he will—made substantial points concerning the format and layout and the way in which the census should be worded. I hope that we shall hear something about that and that, when the pro forma comes up, it will be in a rather more modern idiom than in the past.
We welcome the taking of the census. On a similar occasion many years ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who was then in another place, commented on the somewhat cumbersome character of the whole procedure under the substantive Act, and, in due course, when we have returned to power, we shall examine this matter in detail and perhaps effect some alterations. Meanwhile, we welcome the proposals for a census in 1971 as provided for in the Order.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: You indicated, Mr. Speaker, that if this debate went on longer than 11.30 p.m. there might be some difficulty. I have no intention of trying to keep it going more than five minutes.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) referred to something which caused


me concern—the happy consensus between Government and Opposition, whichever party happened to be in office, about the usefulness, effectiveness and extensiveness of censuses. I like the idea no more because there is a happy consensus than I would if there was no such consensus.
The hon. Member referred to the importance of having the public's good will and co-operation but he managed to avoid mentioning, in a wide-ranging speech, that the actual return of the census form is not voluntary. This is the part that concerns me and certainly concerns some outside. So I join in this debate to indicate that there is one Member of the House—and possibly there are many others—who likes it none the more because it is compulsory than if it had been voluntary.
I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He gave a very full and reasonable account of the reason for the changes in the procedure and the changes in the questions that have been asked. He indicated that the information which would come in from this census would be used to good purpose, to provide better services for people throughout these Islands.
My hon. Friend will accept that some of the information is already available in one form or another in Government Departments, though it is a fact that doing it in this way brings it in at this central level and for a good purpose. Good purposes are not always a good reason for doing compulsorily what might be done voluntarily. I accept that in this I am thoroughly reactionary. My hon. Friend can claim precedents going back 2,000 years, for we read in the Gospel of St. Luke, chapter 2, that:
There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all…should be taxed…and all went…to his own city.
but I do not believe that he would claim that Caesar Augustus was a very good precedent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing that census at the moment.

Mr. Ogden: I am simply making the point that, regardless of the reasonableness of the questions and regardless of the

use of the information that comes along, something sticks in my own throat and in the throats of many outside when they are asked to give information compulsorily, not because of something like income tax or claims they are making but to give information by compulsion with the threat of prison. It may be that at some stage parts of this could be extended and only the more essential information sought compulsorily, other information being asked for volutarily.
I would like an extension of the proposal for a voluntary census. My hon. Friend might then be able to compare the results obtained from such a census with those obtained compulsorily. I am simply voicing my objection to a compulsory census while accepting in full that the intentions of my hon. Friend and those of the Opposition are entirely for the best.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the principle of voluntarism because at least on an occasion when we are discussing a census order it ought to be ventilated and we should have proper answers from the Minister who replies as to why these census returns have to be compulsory.
If one had evidence to show that a large number of people would refuse to fill in census forms and that their reluctance to do so would make the results less significant or that they would be in any way undermined by the refusal of particular categories of people, which would distort the results, I could understand the need to make return of the forms compulsory and provide for penalties in the event of a refusal.
The hon. Gentleman, however, did not argue this in his speech. Looking back over the years, as far as I am aware—though I have glanced only at the 1965 debate—it does not seem to have been a matter of any concern to the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) that in spite of the fact that there are respectable precedents in this country going back to the Census Act, 1920, we should review this and find out whether we could not obtain this information by persuasion rather than compulsion. If not all of the information requested in the forms could


be obtained in that way we should consider whether that would in any way lessen the value of the results to the Government and the various Departments which are to make use of the information once it comes in. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up would deal with that point.
My next point concerns the question of convincing the public that what they are doing in filling in this form has a value in providing them indirectly with the services the Government are planning. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), who spoke about publicity through the radio, television and the Press, was absolutely right: obviously a good deal of money must be spent in explaining to the public, as the Minister explained to the House so painstakingly tonight, why this information is required and how it will benefit the form fillers as citizens in terms of better services the Government can provide.
Apart from broadcasts and announcements in the Press, there is another thing which is of equal importance. Not all of us can manage to see every television programme or read the newspapers every day. I would like to see the sort of explanation that the Minister gave this evening included in the census form itself. I see no reason why a brief summary should not be included of the use to which the answers to the various questions will be put when they are received by Government Departments. If it is possible for the warning to be put on the form, as I believe it is, in heavy type explaining to the citizen that if he refuses to fill in the form he is liable to certain penalties, I do not see why——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot amend the Order. He can, however, denounce it.

Mr. Lubbock: I am not suggesting that the order should be amended. It is a question of how the questions that are provided for in the Order are treated in the form. We shall have another opportunity of discussing the contents of the form. It is right for us to suggest at this stage that the Government should consider these matters in deciding how these questions are translated into a document which goes into households.
As to the questions, I thought that the Minister gave a very good explanation—we are grateful to him for it—of the italicised questions which have to be dealt with under affirmative Resolution. I was happy about most of the hon. Gentleman's answers, but I am not sure that questions 7 and 8 are not ultra vires. The Schedule to the Census Act, 1920, provides that
Any other matters with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population
may be dealt with in the census return.
I do not see that the social or civil condition of the population are affected by the country of birth of one's father or mother or, in respect of persons not born in the United Kingdom, the year of first entry into the United Kingdom.
I can understand that the Minister may say that it would be useful for the Government to know how many immigrants there are in a certain area and to be able to distinguish the true immigrants as it were, from those who just happen to have been born in a foreign country but whose parents were citizens of the United Kingdom. This might be useful from many points of view, but I question whether the Minister has any right to ask those questions under the terms of the Census Act, 1920.
I think that all the other italicised questions are reasonable and that they will, in the terms that the hon. Gentleman described, provide useful information for the Government. It always surprises me that, for instance, local education authorities have practically no idea of how many primary school places they will have to provide in the next few years, because no information is available about the number of children under the age of five. Such information is obviously of vital importance to local education authorities in planning the future provision of school facilities.
It must be remembered that when people are asked to give this rather personal information about their own households, personal activities, employment, and so on, they are likely to ask what use will be made of it. I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances he gave about the confidentiality of the returns. However, there is one point that causes me


some anxiety on this matter, and I shall return to it.
Before leaving the questionnaire, may I mention one matter which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has asked me to raise. I have discussed it with him, and I think that what he says is reasonable. It relates to the questions on the speaking of Welsh. My hon. and learned Friend points out that a large number of Welsh people have been forced to leave their native country to seek work in other parts of the United Kingdom. In addition, many of them come here as teachers in our schools, and we are grateful to them for that.
Many of them are native Welsh speakers, and my hon. and learned Friend says that from this questionnaire as it stands we shall not get an adequate picture of the number of Welsh speakers in the United Kingdom as a whole. As the purpose of these three questions is possibly to decide such matters as grants for Welsh books, the amount of Welsh broadcasting that is necessary on television and radio, and the number of teachers of Welsh required in schools, it is necessary for the Government to have an overall picture and not one which is confined to the Principality itself. I should like the Government to consider that so that I can discuss the matter further with my hon. and learned Friend.
I said that there was one issue which caused me concern on looking at these questions, and that is the sale of information derived from the census to commercial organisations for use in market surveys which they undertake. The sample census of 1966 was sold to an organisation called B. I. A. Ltd., which paid a large sum of money for all the data derived from the census. Although the hon. Gentleman says that the people who take the information are required to observe absolute confidence about individuals—and one accepts that, because of the penalties which go with the release of information about individuals—it is still possible for these commercial organisations to buy the information concerning ward libraries, which consist of 220 houses in a census district. It is possible for individuals to be identified within that tranche of 220 houses, and for secrets of their personal lives to become known to people with commercial interests.
That causes me some anxiety, and I should like the Government to say that they are not going to sell any of the information derived from the census, which, as the hon. Gentleman explained, is primarily of importance to Government Departments, local authorities, transport planners, and so on, and not to commercial firms. It is not the function of a Government to collect information of a highly confidential nature from private citizens and then sell it to somebody for purposes of commercial gain. From the Government's point of view the sums involved are not very large, and I think that they could forgo this income without any great loss to the taxpayer.
I should like an undertaking that this practice will be discontinued with the 1971 census. If someone wants to buy a complete census referring to a county, or county boroughs, that is harmless, because the number of people concerned is far too large for any individual to be identified, but I am not happy about this practice of selling ward libraries, and I should like it to be discontinued.
One cannot object to a census being taken as such. The information is required—indeed, it is vitally necessary—to enable the Government and local authorities to plan the provision of facilities for the citizens they serve. I am not objecting to the Census Order, but I should like some reassurance on the points that I have raised before we pass the Order this evening.

9.59 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milian): As there has been a general welcome to the Order, it is perhaps unnecessary for me to spend any time on a justification of it, but I should like to take up a number of points, some of them quite general, which have been raised during this short debate.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) raised the whole question of confidentiality. It will be an important part of the pre-publicity for the census to get over to members of the public that the information they will be providing in the census returns will be treated with extreme confidentiality. I agree that there is a question of public confidence here, and that members of the public are increasingly concerned about what they rightly consider to be infringements of


privacy. The Government, as witness the recent establishment of the Committee, are very concerned about this. In this atmosphere it is essential that we should persuade members of the public that the information asked for is, first, absolutely essential and, secondly, that it will be treated with great confidentiality, and that no details of any individual or any individual family will be disclosed to anybody.
The range of census questions is restricted to some extent because of the need to get public confidence. There are obviously many questions that it would be useful for the Government to ask. Questions about income were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State in opening the debate, but these questions are not included in the census because there is no guarantee that they would be as widely accepted by the public as is necessary if the results of the census are to be of the accuracy and completeness that we must have, and if people are to be persuaded to co-operate. Not many questions in the proposed questionnaire are likely to be sensitive questions, although there may be questions which are perfectly innocent for most of us and yet touch a point of sensitivity for certain members of the population.
There are penalties for disclosure of census information. In addition to penalties covering those who are engaged in the taking of the census, the enumerators and so on, there will also be a regulation to forbid heads of households who acquire information relating to other people in the household, or heads of establishments who acquire information relating to people in their establishment, from disclosing that information or using it improperly.
It will be open to anyone making a return to send it to the local census officer in preference to handing it to the enumerator, and we shall try, as far as possible, to make sure that enumerators do not know personally the families they will be covering in the course of their work. The order also provides that the individual people in a household can make their own personal returns. Their returns do not have to go through the head of the household. Similarly, in institutions and so on, individual returns,

as distinct from institutional returns, are perfectly possible and can be channelled in a way that allows no one to see the information that is provided.
After the various analyses have been done and the results published, the returns are passed to the Public Record Office, where they are not made available for inspection by the public until 100 years have elapsed, and I think that is a fairly generous assurance of confidentiality. I am informed that all census returns after 100 years are extremely useful for historical researchers.
As regards passing of information to other Government Departments, local authority associations and public bodies, no information is passed out from the census office except on a statistical basis in the published documents. Nothing is passed out in a way that can identify any individual, or relate individuals to the particular pieces of information that are being passed out.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) raised the matter of sale to commercial organisations. I assure him that areas for which information is given on a statistical basis are deliberately kept large enough to avoid any risk of identifying individual people or households. If there are particular instances in which the hon. Gentleman feels that this principle has been breached I shall be glad to look into them, but that is the principle on which information is made available. It would be too restrictive to say that under no circumstances whatever is information to be available to any outside commercial organisation. After all, many of the public documents must in any case he available to commercial organisations. I do not see that there is any principle here of the kind the hon. Gentleman has in mind. But I agree with him that one must not break down the results into such fine areas that, with a little intelligent deduction, it is possible to identify particular families by information perhaps pertinent to a small number of families. We intend that that kind of thing should be avoided.

Mr. Lubbock: Perhaps I could give a hypothetical example, not an actual case. Since one of the questions relates to the number of motorcars as related to members of private households, let us say that among 220 households one family


possesses five cars. It would not be difficult for a commercial organisation interested in selling motor car accessories to pick out that one household from the 220.

Mr. Millan: I am not sure w ere the 220 the hon. Gentleman has in mind comes from, but I make the general point which I have already made that the information will not be supplied cut down to such fine areas or such fine pieces of information that it will be possible to make the kind of identification the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The areas for which information might be supplied, and the kind of information, must all depend on the particular item involved. What may be sensible for one particular item of information might not be sensible for another. I have stated the principle on which it will operate and I would be happy to look into any particular instances. It is important to give the assurance that it is an absolute principle of the census that information is not made available to anybody, it does not matter whether they be commercial organisations, public bodies or anyone else, in a form to enable them to identify particular pieces of information and individual householders or members of families.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester also dealt with the question of sampling. Since he accepted the principle on which the census is based, perhaps it is not necessary for me to deal with the matter at length since my hon. Friend mentioned it in his opening remarks. We looked at this matter extremely carefully and I took some persuading that a sample would not do the job as regards certain items of information. But all the professional advice we have is that there should be 100 per cent. enumeration, although in the actual publication of figures and the use of information afterwards, having got the 100 per cent. information, certain sampling techniques would be possible and, for certain purposes, a sample will be done at that particular time. Our professional advice is that it is essential to have all the information in the census if it is to be complete, and if we are to get the kind of information available in the detail in which we require it to justify the tremendous effort that the census involves.
I was asked about the publication of results. I agree that it is important that the results should be published as quickly as possible. I do not have time to go over all the details of publication, but perhaps I may run over one or two matters. Within three months of census day we should be able to give an enumerated population by sex for the whole of the country and for regions and local authority areas. Within six to nine months there will be another preliminary report giving some additional information, sex, age, marital condition, country of birth, distinguishing between the working population and the rest for the whole of the country, for regions and for local authority areas. Within 12 months of census day, certain sample tables will be provided. Then we go on to provide more detailed information with the target in mind of having all the basic information published within two years of census day.
This will be very much better than the achievement in 1961 and also better than that of the publication of the results of the sample census in 1966. The time table in 1961 was a rather protracted one, and the main tables were not completed until more than five years after census day. The final volume did not appear until 1967. We hope to do a good deal better than that with the census of 1971. In 1966, there was an improvement over 1961. Virtually all the reports in that census had appeared by the end of 1969, but that was working with much less information since it was only a sample census. In 1971 we shall be dealing with very much more information, and the job involved will be a much greater one because we shall be dealing with a lot more information, because it is not a sample census, because we hope to speed up publication of the results, and for a number of other reasons.
The cost of the 1971 census is likely to be a good deal more than that in 1961. The gross expenditure in 1971 is likely to be about £10 million. Even allowing for changes in the value of money, that is considerably more than the census in 1961 cost. It is virtually double the cost, even in real terms. However, that is part of the price that we pay for additional information, for the methods of handling the information that we are adopting and for the quicker publication


of the results. But, in terms of the value which can be obtained from the census, especially from the more speedy presentation of results, I think that this will be money well spent.

Mr. Buck: Can the hon. Gentleman break that down a little further? In actual money terms, it must be well over twice, if one takes into account the decline in the value of money. Can he give us any breakdown of those items which will cost more?

Mr. Millan: I gave the information in real terms because I thought that that was the fairest way of presenting it. I was not trying to take advantage of the fact that prices have gone up since then. The biggest item is field costs, taking the England and Wales figures, which will go up from rather less than £3 million to just under £5 million. That is an example of the kind of change in real terms between the two dates of 1961 and 1971. The computer costs are also up, the printing is slightly up, and the headquarters costs are also very considerably increased. However, there is a general increase in all the items involved.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other points, especially as regards the presentation and layout of the form. I have had regard to what he said. We are not discussing the layout of the form tonight. We shall be doing that later when it comes to the regulations. However, we have taken advantage of the pretests in 1968 and 1969, and we hope very much that, when the form is presented, it will be agreed that we have made a real effort to get a layout which will be intelligible to the people who have to complete it. This is not easy, but we hope that the layout will be an improvement on past censuses. We have taken a good deal of care with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) raised the question of voluntary censuses. His point had validity to this extent at least. Since the census is compulsory we have to persuade people that the information required from the census is essential. My hon. Friend, in opening, went over the items in considerable detail and produced a justification for all of them. We have not included in the order anything that we do not feel is absolutely essential.

We have jettisoned particular items of information that we would dearly like, but which we felt would make the form too long or not acceptable to members of the public.
It is not practicable to do this on a voluntary basis. It is impossible to judge with accuracy what the response is likely to be, but we have experience of voluntary surveys. Certainly on that experience, including the pre-test censuses which are on a voluntary basis, we might get a response of about 80 per cent. It might be more, depending on the publicity and care with which we presented it and so on, but it would not be anything like a 100 per cent. return.
There is no guarantee that the forms returned would, as it were, be typical of the whole. I think there is almost a guarantee that they would be untypical of the whole and we could not gross the thing up and get information on an accurate basis. Therefore, if we are to have a census in any meaningful way, it means a compulsory census. We shall try our best in the publicity about the census to explain why the information is required.
The hon. Member for Orpington suggested that we might put something on the form explaining why the information on particular items is required. That would be impracticable without making the form an even more formidable document than it will look at present. Whether we could include on the form a general statement about the necessity for the information is a matter I will look into. But when we take account of the complexity of the information, to try to provide justification for it all, apart from the possibilities of arguments between the enumerators and individual members of households whether the justification was valid or not, would make the form far too complex. However, I will look into the question whether we should include a general statement on the form.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned items 7 and 8 in the Schedule and said that he thought they were ultra vires. I must dispute that. Apart from anything else, the order has, in the normal way, gone to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I am sure that if it was ultra vires that Committee would have drawn it to the attention of the House.
The information for which we are asking about immigrants is extremely


important and relevant in ascertaining the social condition of the population. If we are to improve our knowledge about the situation of immigrants in this country, the kind of information for which we are asking in items 7 and 8 is indispensable. I was glad that the hon. Member for Colchester, in his opening, welcomed the emphasis that had been put in the order on improving the quality of that information.
Concerning Welsh—and Gaelic is also concerned—the answer is that there are Welsh and Gaelic speakers in England as well as in Wales and Scotland, respectively. But we must have regard to the complexity of the form and the complexity of the information which we are asking people to provide. There would be a certain danger in asking people in England, the vast majority of whom would not be involved and would, as it were, be producing a nil return, to give information of this kind. That is why Gaelic is restricted to returns made in Scotland and Welsh to those made in

Wales, including Monmouthshire, but the information asked for on the form about the reading and writing of Gaelic and Welsh is new, so we will have additional information compared to previous censuses.
These are virtually all the questions that I was asked. I am glad that hon. Members have generally accepted the necessity for the census and welcomed the Order and the very detailed explanation which my hon. Friend gave in moving it. I commend the Order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That items 2, 7, 8, 10, the words in item 11(a) 'and the month and the year of birth of each such child', 11(b) and (c), 12, 13, 14(a)(vii) and (viii), 15, 18, and 19 in Schedule 2 to the draft of the Order in Council, entitled the Census Order 1970, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to move his Prayer?

Mr. Buck: No, Sir.

BANKING COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS)

10.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I beg to move,
That the Banking Companies (Accounts) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
The Eighth Schedule to the Companies Act, 1948, sets out the matters on which companies are required to give information in their accounts. Paragraph 23 of that Schedule exempts from many of the requirements of the Schedule any company which satisfies the Board of Trade that it ought to be treated for the purposes of the Schedule as a banking company. A bank so exempted is entitled to draw up its annual accounts in a way which does not disclose the full amount of its reserves and does not show its true profit or loss for the year with which the accounts deal.
The purpose of these regulations is to repeal paragraph 23 of the Eighth Schedule in relation to two classes of banks: the London clearing banks, and those Scottish banks which carry on a business similar to that of the London clearing banks. The Scottish banks are defined in the regulations as those which are represented on the Committee of Scottish Bank General Managers. The effect of the repeal will be that any bank in one of these two classes will be subject to the provisions of the Eighth Schedule which apply to companies in general. It will be required to prepare its accounts in a way which gives a true and fair view of the state of its affairs and of its profit or loss for the year.
Most hon. Members will be aware that, in September of last year, the London clearing banks and the Scottish banks concerned announced that, after discussion with the authorities, they had decided that, in future, they would prepare their annual accounts in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1948, which apply to the generality of companies, and cease to take any advantage of the exemptions available to them under paragraph 23 of the Eighth Schedule.
It is because the banks came to that decision that the accounts to be published in the near future, such as accounts for 1969 of banks with years ending on 31st December, will be full accounts. But it seems right, in a matter of this importance, that the law should require full accounts, and that will be the position in relation to accounts prepared and published after 1st April, if these regulations are approved.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: We should not allow the regulations to go through on the nod, because many questions need asking, particularly by those hon. Members—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) here—who were on the Committee on the Companies Bill which discussed these matters back in 1967.
The first question is: why has it taken so long to produce the regulations? I would draw the hon. Lady's attention to the statement made by her right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) on 21st March, 1967, in that Standing Committee. When I asked how long it would take for the discussions with the banks to be completed so that an instrument such as this could be introduced, he replied:
Not very much longer now. We cannot take any action until the Bill is on the Statute Book, and this will be early in the summer"—
that was 1967—
I do not think that the hon. Member will be disappointed about the time-lag between the passing of the Bill and the bringing in of the regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 21st March, 1967; c. 380.]
I am disappointed. I do not know what the hon. Lady would regard as not very long, but I regard two-and-a-half years as being a very long time indeed.
I am far from happy about the scope of the order. The Jenkins Committee was divided on the subject of disclosure by banks. The minority report, which was not insubstantial, was signed by Professor Gower, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Mackinnon, Mrs. Naylor and Mr. Ron Smith. It recommended that in the case of all but one of the categories of banking and discount houses enumerated in the body of the report, the exemptions


should be totally withdrawn, the various categories being the London clearing banks and the Scottish banks, to which this Order applies, the accepting houses, the British overseas banks, the discount houses and a miscellaneous group.
It was recommended in the minority report that the exemption might continue to apply to the overseas banks, and I would not argue about that. We need to know why the order does not extend to the accepting houses, the discount houses and the miscellaneous group, and why——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Order cannot be amended. It applies to particular banks, and it cannot be amended to apply to some other banks in which the hon. Gentleman may be interested.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I was not suggesting that it should be amended, Mr. Speaker, but asking why this group of banks had been excluded, and, in particular, why this attitude had been taken to the foreign banks when the Jenkins Committee stated in the main report that——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That would require a separate Order. We are discussing an instrument which destroys an exemption for certain banks as specified in the Order. The hon. Gentleman can approve or disapprove of this, but he cannot amend the Order.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I am merely seeking an explanation why the hon. Lady has overridden the Jenkins recommendation that the same rules should apply not only to the banks included in the order but to foreign banks operating in this country with which they are in direct competition. This was specifically recommended in paragraph 406 of the Jenkins Report, and we should be told why the hon. Lady is making a distinction which Jenkins said should not be made.
I want to make clear that in considering this Order I am concerned with the position of owners of these banks. Owners of banks which are included in the order should have been entitled long before to receive the full information which comes from full disclosure of loss of accounting exemptions in the Order so that they

could properly judge the affairs of their companies. I do not think it good enough to present this Order without any explanation why it has taken so long for the exemption to be withdrawn.
We had many discussions in Committee on the Companies Bill about this and we were given every indication that this matter was regarded by the Board of Trade as one of urgency. I wish to make clear that I am not making any criticism of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, who was extremely helpful and considerate throughout proceedings on the Bill. I believe that if he had still been in his former position we would have had this order long ago. Unfortunately, since his departure from that office company affairs have not been treated with the expedition or seriousness which they deserve within the Department. I very much regret his departure for that reason. It is high time that owners of banks not included in the Order—accepting houses, discount houses and the miscellaneous group—had the information which they would be entitled to if the order were extended to them.
It is worth recalling that the totality of the Jenkins Committee recommended unanimously that the exemption enjoyed by the shipping companies should he withdrawn. The Government have made no move whatever on that recommendation. When we were discussing all these things in Committee on the Companies Bill in 1967 the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, promised that they would all come in a new Companies Bill. Some of us felt it necessary to express some scepticism about the likelihood of a new Companies Bill coming forward. Apparently the Government have abandoned any intention of producing such a Bill.
We bear in mind that we introduced a number of Amendments to eliminate these exemptions for banking and discount companies, the miscellaneous group and shipping companies and withdrew them on the understanding that the Government, following examination of the matter, would be expeditious and comprehensive.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I shall try to be brief because I do not want to keep the House sitting nor to keep my hon. Friend from her husband.
This Order deals with banks. Perhaps the definition of a banker is too long to give now. Mark Twain gave it as the definition of a man who lends an umbrella when the sun is shining and takes it back when it is raining. This Order is discriminatory between one set of banks and another. The clearing houses to which it applies act fairly honourably. That is no reason for not taking them into public ownership, but I shall not deal with that in discussing the Order.
There are banks which are not dealt with on disclosure of accounts which have a pretty shabby record—what one might call back-street bankers. In times of credit squeeze there is almost a black market in money. The sort of practices adopted by those banks were disclosed in the Consumer Council magazine Focus. They enjoy the protection of bankers and banking companies by virtue of the Board of Trade's certificate and do not have to comply with the Moneylenders Acts, yet they get away with charging extraordinarily hot rates of interest, arrangements for redemption which are grossly inequitable compared with other clearing banks and discount houses, and sums to cover legal fees and surveyors' fees, inspection and registration fees, particularly when lending money on first and second mortgages on houses.
I denounce the order—to remain in order—to ask why the Board of Trade does not do something about those banks, the back-street boys. Why can they shelter behind my hon. Friend's slender figure? When will she do something to make them disclose what goes on behind their doors as well as dealing with the clearing banks?

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shaw: I welcome the Order, but I think that the hon. Lady has to a certain extent missed a sense of occasion in its presentation. To anyone who has taken an interest in company law, particularly the changing attitudes towards the presentation of accounts, to anyone, indeed, who has followed the changing attitude towards banks and bankers and the changing pattern of banking, the regulations are a small but important milestone.
To welcome the changes that the regulations will confirm—it is a confirmation, because the banks have already indicated that they are prepared to bring about the changes voluntarily—is not to criticise the past. The reputation and standard of our banks, particularly our clearing banks, are reflected in the saying
As safe as the Bank of England.
Today it is unthinkable that the famous British banks should default on any of their obligations. But this was not always so. Out of a harsh experience these great banks have built their business and their reputation. In an unsophisticated age, with the air of mystery and permanence that grew around them and due to the skilful way in which they carried out their job, confidence was built, confidence for the benefit of their customers and confidence for the trading communities throughout the world.
It must be emphasised that the secrecy with which the banks have been allowed to cloak their affairs has not been misused. So it may well be questioned why we should now seek to change what has seemed pretty satisfactory. The answer lies in the changing pattern and requirements of our commercial life. Today, with communications on a scale far greater than before, and the size and complexity of commerce growing almost daily, the well-being of our commercial life depends more and more on accurate, detailed and up-to-date information and on the considerable body of informed criticism to which it is subjected.
Business confidence today rests on accurate disclosure rather than discreet hiding of the facts. In voluntarily agreeing, as the banks are doing this year, to waive their exemption from their obligation as to disclosure in their accounts, the banks are accepting that they are a part of, and not distinct and different from, our general flow of commercial life. Accordingly, it is right that they should properly conform to the changing requirements of the law. The old concept that it was dangerous to upset the public by showing all the fluctuations of trading, that it was better to juggle in secret with reserves and the value of assets, so as to present a consistent and confidence-making picture, went out many years ago for the generality of companies.
It was finally ended by what was in my view in many ways the tragic, although probably inevitable, case of Kylsant. As a result of the Cohen Committee's Report there were set out in considerable detail in Schedule 8 of the 1948 Act matters that must be disclosed, and the manner in which they must be disclosed, in the profit and loss accounts and the balance sheets. The 1967 Act, on which many hon. Members spent a great deal of time, not least my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), tightened still further these disclosures.
The Jenkins Committee by a majority vote upheld the Cohen view that exemptions from these requirements should be continued for banking and discount companies. That it did so, there is little doubt, arose from its belief that nothing should be done in any way to undermine the confidence and stability of the banks.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would my hon. Friend not agree that in practice the Jenkins Committee's Report suggests that the recommendation was curiously at variance with the consideration that it advanced in detail before making the recommendation?

Mr. Shaw: There is much in that. It was advancing towards the conclusion of disclosure but felt that the importance of confidence and stability in the banks was such that unless it was asbolutely sure it would not be right to recommend complete disclosure. I felt that the majority view was that it could not at that stage be certain that it was right so to recommend. This was because it felt that confidence and stability in the banks was a national assets of first importance.
Jenkins reported in June, 1962, and even then there was only a majority decision that exemption should be continued for these companies. The strong minority view was that this exemption, at any rate for banks whose main business was in the United Kingdom, was no longer necessary and should be ended. The minority report went on to argue in a most telling manner and concluded that the exemption should be withdrawn and a wider reserve power should be given to the Board of Trade in cases where the national interest might be involved.
It must be clear when discussing these regulations that the exemptions granted to the banks were great. They related to undisclosed transfers to and from reserves, doing away with the need to show the charge for tax on the year's profits, and there was no need to discriminate between reserve provisions and liabilities in their balance sheets, no need to show the market value of their investments, no need to show the method of valuation for fixed assets or depreciation, and so on. What it means is that banks had no need to show their true profits in any year. Profits in any year could be more or less than those stated to the public. The figures in their balance sheets could, again, in theory at least, include a greater or lesser discrepancy than that included in the corresponding figures for the previous year.
This matter, always important, is even more important today because there is a movement in the banks towards mergers and wider fields of activity in which they are becoming more and more engaged. By the time the 1967 Act was passed, things had moved further in favour of removal of the exemption. It was made clear in Committee on that Act, by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) that discussions were taking place with the banks on whether or not the exemption should be discontinued and that these discussions had reached an advanced stage. He indicated that conclusions would not long be delayed and that appropriate orders would be placed before the House. I do not consider that the period since then is a short one, although the right hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be.
In considering the Order, since no explanation has been given, we are bound to question how satisfactory it is. The London clearing banks and the Scottish banks are one of six different classes itemised in the Jenkins Report, and not one reason has been given by the hon. Lady why the other five categories have not been included in the order. I understand that discussions have been going on with the banks concerned. Why has it been agreed among the London clearing banks and the Scottish banks that they should make full disclosure but that others should continue to be allowed


their exemption? Without an explanation, the Order is incomplete and unsatisfactory.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Order. He can discuss only the banks mentioned in it and not those which are not mentioned.

Mr. Shaw: Would it be in order, in discussing the unsatisfactoriness of the Order, to say that it is not complete in its present form?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. It would be out of order.

Mr. Shaw: I hope that at any rate I have made our feelings clear on the matter, and I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Limited though it may be in scope, we welcome the Order. I have criticised the time scale between the Committee stage of the 1967 Act and now in comparison with that envisaged by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough. But at least we have an Order, which is more than can be said about the new and wide ranging companies legislation which we were also promised in 1967. It is certain that we shall not see such legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament. It makes things difficult when we have to discuss such orders as this against the background of promised future legislation. However, this Order is part of the promises made on that earlier occasion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into a wider debate than is admissible on the Order.

Mr. Shaw: None the less, limited though the regulations are, we welcome them. They will be of benefit to our commercial life. Whilst the history of disclosure and its implementation in the case of banks is a long and slow one, there is no cause for criticism on that count. Public confidence has been the over-riding consideration. Right though the regulations now are, they are also irrevocable, except by a new Act of Parliament.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order. I seek guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your Ruling about what it is in order to discuss on the regulations. We are possibly in a slight difficulty.

You have ruled that we cannot discuss the discounting and banking houses which are not in the regulations. Would it be in order for the Minister in replying to deal with the reasons for singling out the two types of bank which are in the regulations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes; it would be in order for the Minister to say why those are in the regulations; as long as she does not go wider than that, it would be perfectly in order.

10.51 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: With the leave of the House, I speak again. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) said that I have rather missed a sense of occasion. I am happy that the hon. Gentleman chose to welcome the regulations. If I wished to be unkind, which I can never bring myself to be to the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that it would appear that my hon. Friends have more of a sense of occasion than his hon. Friends. Perhaps for it to be otherwise would cause great difficulties at this hour of night.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. BruceGardyne) made a great deal of the recommendations of the Jenkins Committee—rightly so, as they were obviously the basis on which much has depended. The hon. Member for South Angus said that I have over-ridden the findings of the Jenkins Committee, conveniently forgetting that what he was talking about was the minority report and that, although the Committee was divided, the majority recommended that the exemptions should continue.
The Companies Act, 1967, left the exemptions untouched but ensured that the Board of Trade's power to amend Schedule 8 was adequate to make whatever changes in the exemptions might seem desirable in the future.
The hon. Member for South Angus took me to task. I was glad to hear him pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the former Minister of State—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling)—because my right hon. Friend did such an enormous amount of work in company reform that it is only right for the House to pay a sincere tribute to the brilliant way in which he handled


that Bill. It crossed my mind when the hon. Gentleman was speaking that possibly my right hon. Friend did not receive as much assistance from the hon. Gentleman as he might have done, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has at this late date seen the light.
I must be careful not to go outside your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The regulations do not include the other banks because the Government are not yet convinced that the exemptions can safely be withdrawn from the other banks. The Government will review the position when they have the full accounts from those banks over a longer period than at present. Although much has been made of the period of three years, the dangers of doing anything too rapidly are considerable. It is only right that we should have a number of years in which to consider full accounts before we take further decisions.
The Government do not agree with the Jenkins Committee on the question of shipping companies. The Companies Act, 1967, provides for the exemption of shipping companies but on a smaller scale than was the case under the 1948 Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) expresed concern about a slightly different point. I have some sympathy with the views he expressed. The banks and companies to which my hon. Friend referred are not recognised for the purposes of Schedule 8. They have not the exemptions with which the regulations are concerned. There is, therefore, nothing in these regulations which will perform the task that my hon. Friend was asking about in relation to these companies. If there is any particular instance that he has in mind where he feels that the Board of Trade should be exercising its power in this matter, I shall be only too happy to examine any evidence that he sends me.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Lady has not dealt with the different treatment of foreign banks resident in this country. She has based herself on the majority recommendation of the Jenkins Committee, against the minority, but it was the general recommendation of the Jenkins Committee that foreign banks should be treated on the same basis as United Kingdom banks. Why are they

not being treated on that basis in these regulations?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The regulations have been restricted in this way because the London clearing banks and the Scottish banks have themselves come to an agreement with the authorities on the basis of discussions over this period of three years. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that because these regulations are before the House there is not a constant movement in this matter. We are well aware of the difficulties that arise in relation to the different classes of bank, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that although we are tonight talking about a restricted part of the Schedule, it is one which will carry forward the whole movement of company reform.
There is no doubt that the whole matter of company reform is one which still offers great scope for considerable activity. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to join me in hoping that when the next Labour Government is returned one of their first tasks will be to undertake yet another Companies Bill, and I shall be only too delighted to pilot it through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Banking Companies (Accounts) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.

TRANSPORT (FLOCKTON BY-PASS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

10.57 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I wish tonight to press my hon. Gentleman to do something which I think should have been done years ago, and that is to authorise forthwith the construction of a road off the Huddersfield—Wakefield A642 to join the A637 but by-passing the village of Flockton. I want, further, to press him to make the necessary improvements along the A637 on its feeder course to the M1.
It is a normal courtesy for a backbench Member, when he has a debate on the Adjournment, to let the Minister


know the points that he is going to raise. This has not been necessary in this case, because for the last five years at least the Minister of Transport has known all the arguments in favour of the course which I am now pressing. The arguments have been put to the Ministry by the West Riding County Council, by the urban district council, by the County Borough of Huddersfield, by political parties, by groups of private individuals, especially in Flockton, and by myself. Indeed, I have noticed in the last twelve months that when I have been walking down the corridors of this House and have come face to face with a Minister from the Ministry of Transport he has invariably dived into the only place where he can secure privacy.
This pressure has not been selfish. It has not been blind. It has not been unintelligent. We recognise the difficulties which the Minister of Transport faces in these cases. There are questions of priorities, but I have received some promises, and I shall state them.
Last April I was promised that a decision would be taken on this issue in midsummer. When midsummer came and went, I pressed again, and I was assured that a decision would be taken round about October. No decision was taken in October, and we are now in the middle of February. I press my hon. Friend here and now for the decision which I was promised some considerable time ago.
This road, to my knowledge—and I have known it for about 50 years—has always been a bad road. There are at least three places in the village of Flock-ton where it is impossible for vehicles of any considerable size moving in opposite directions to pass each other without going on the pavement. This is no longer a village road carrying village traffic. It is a feeder to the MI, and when the Lancashire and Yorkshire motorway is opened, as it will be in no great distance of time, the traffic on it is likely to be still further increased.
As a result of the change in the character of the road, walls that line the road are being knocked down, slates from the adjacent roofs are being shaken into the roadway, and children on their way to school are having to skip for their lives. Thank God there has so far

been no death from a traffic accident on that road, but I beg my hon. Friend not to wait for a death but to do something now—something which all the arguments suggest should be done right away.
Because my hon. Friend is both sensable and compassionate, I expect that I shall get a favourable answer that work on this project will be started right away. But even if I do it will be three or four years before that by-pass is completed and before the rest of the improvements to the road are carried out. In the meantime, my constituents in Flockton and many others who pass through the village will be at risk. Therefore, I am asking my hon. Friend tonight not only for the major decision but also to consider certain things which might be done as a temporary alleviation of the dangers of that road.
I have mentioned that there are places in Flockton where it is not possible for two large-sized vehicles to pass without going on the pavement. Those places are at the Huddersfield entrance to the village, outside the Sun public house and outside the George and Dragon public house. Would my hon. Friend consider whether it is possible to set up at those three points, temporarily until the bypass is completed, stop lights which will enforce a necessary one-way traffic system?
Another point, which perhaps is not my hon. Friend's responsibility, is this. The West Riding Police have been very co-operative, appreciating the dangers, and have increased the patrols and radar traps to stop speeding. For that I am most grateful. But the trouble is that they seem to be a little too co-operative, because when it is decided to set up a radar trap, all the drivers seem to know about it the day before. Could the police be a little more reticent when they are patrolling that stretch of road to stop people speeding?
My third and last temporary point is that on the Huddersfield-Wakefield road, the A642, at the Grange Moor turn there is a large motorway sign pointing in the direction of Flockton along the A637 saying, "To Barnsley and the Motorway". Beyond that sign is another very much smaller sign which says, "To avoid Flockton village alternative route dead ahead for vehicles in excess of 10 tons


laden". A vehicle that is 10 tons laden is a pretty large size anyway, but my point is that that sign is obscured by the larger motorway sign diverting people through the village of Flockton. Could the motorway sign be taken down, could the second sign be made larger, and could the vehicles to which it is addressed be smaller, less than 10 tons unladen weight?
We have been pressing this matter for a very long time, and we have pressed it reasonably. There is a serious problem here. Will the Minister give us a solution to it?

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) has said. Although Flockton is not within my constituency, it nevertheless affects a tremendous number of people in my constituency.
I place on record a letter which I received from the Town Clerk of Huddersfield and which emphasises what my hon. Friend has said:
You will recall that I wrote to you in August 1967 stating that I had written to the Ministry of Transport expressing the council's concern that the widening and improvement of the A637 between Grange Moor and Haigh had not been commenced. I have today written to the Ministry again
—the letter is dated 21st January—
at the request of the council regarding the total inadequacy of this road to carry the heavy traffic which uses it to join the M1 and expressing the council's grave concern that the work has still not been commenced.
He goes on to say:
I have seen press reports which indicate that this matter has been raised again very recently, and I understand that it has been raised from time to time since 1967. In the council's view this work should have been sanctioned long ago and should have been completed by this time, and should certainly be sanctioned and carried out without any further delay.
I endorse everything my hon. Friend has said, and I want to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary three questions. First, will he state in categorical terms when work on the Flockton by-pass will commence? Can he hold out any hope? Secondly, is he aware that the A637, which is the main feeder road to the M1, is totally inadequate to carry the traffic that is moving to the M1, and will he do something about that?

Thirdly, will he say why this proposal has not been sanctioned after five years, and what is stopping the sanction?
With the junction of the M62 linking up with the M1, the Flockton by-pass is crucial. It is totally wrong that it should have been delayed for four or five years. I sincerely hope that the Ministry of Transport will sanction the building of the by-pass, and that we can have access through Huddersfield to the M1. If the Minister is not prepared to say this, I must warn him that there is a danger that the people of Huddersfield will say that the Ministry could not care less. I know that my hon. Friend cares and I hope that he will give the earliest consideration to sanctioning this feeder road. I hope, too, that he will assure us tonight that the bypass for Flockton will be announced very shortly, and that it will be built to the satisfaction of all concerned.

11.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) for raising the question of the proposed Flockton by-pass and for giving me an opportunity to explain the present position.
He has made reference to his activities in this House and elsewhere on behalf of his constituents on this issue. He has, to say the least of it, been extremely persistent in his advocacy of the scheme. He has deluged me with correspondence, and I have been almost too frightened to wander into the Tea Room lest I was assailed again. Certainly I have had no peace in the matter.
It is important in the first place to realise that the A637 is a principal road for which the local authority, the West Riding County Council, is responsible as highway authority. The A637 forms part of the M1 feeder route to Huddersfield. The existing road through the village of Flockton varies in width from 18 ft. to 25 ft. with footpath widths between 4 and 5½ ft. In 1966, traffic flow on this length of the A637 was 5,300 vehicles per day, 25 per cent. of which were heavy goods vehicles. The calculated traffic volume for 1974 is 8,600 vehicles per day.
As my hon. Friend knows, a scheme which includes a by-pass for Flockton is


among those under consideration for inclusion in the list of inter-urban principal road schemes for preparation and future programming.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: How long?

Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend can contain himself, I will come to his points in a moment.
Inclusion of a scheme in the preparation list means generally that we are prepared to pay a 75 per cent. grant to permit work to start within five to eight years from 1971. But we encourage local authorities to plan on the basis of being ready to make the earliest possible start on constructional work, and we regard 1976–77 as the latest year by which schemes should be ready. Much earlier starts will be possible for good schemes which are fully prepared more quickly.
We had hoped by now to have announced the schemes to be included in the inter-urban preparation list, but competition is very keen and we have had to analyse the various proposals very carefully to ensure selection of best possible schemes. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce his decisions during the next few weeks, but I cannot anticipate what his statement will contain.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Assuming a decision in favour of the scheme, will that mean that work on it can start straight away, into the rolling programme?

Mr. Brown: It means that when my right hon. Friend announces any scheme as being in the preparation list, it is then for the highway authority responsible to prepare the scheme to the point where it can be firmly programmed. Again, I do not want to assume too much, but since this scheme was an unsuccessful candidate for the 1969–70 extension to the principal road programme, which was announced in December, 1965, I would have thought that the highway authority would have the scheme in a fairly well advanced state.
While I, clearly, do not want to anticipate too much of what my right hon. Friend will say when he makes his announcement, I am prepared to confirm that a scheme to relieve traffic congestion at Flockton remains a tremendously strong contender for inclusion in the list.

Once in the preparation list, the speed at which schemes come forward for firm programming and start of work is primarily in the hands of the local authority concerned, but the divisional road engineer will continue to give all the help and advice he can.
Our experience has been that good schemes take about two years to reach the stage of preparation when firm programming decisions can be taken, but there is no magic about this. If a local authority can produce the necessary detailed information more quickly, we will do all we can, provided that my right hon. Friend's statement will meet my hon. Friends' wishes and that the West Riding County Council will have the scheme well advanced.

Mr. Lomas: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the scheme has been put forward for the last five years and that the arguments in favour of a by-pass have been advanced not only by Huddersfield County Borough Council but by the West Riding County Council, that they have asked for a by-pass at Flockton every year since 1965 and that they await only the sanction of the Ministry? Will he not take action and do something immediately?

Mr. Brown: I have already said that I have great sympathy with my hon. Friends, but my right hon. Friend does not have a bottomless purse and must judge the relative priorities of the many schemes put forward as candidates for the preparation list. I have said that this scheme was an unsuccessful candidate for an earlier extension of the programme. One draws one's own conclusion; I will not be on record as having said anything in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East suggested that some temporary measures might be taken at the Huddersfield entrance to the Flockton Road, at the "Sun" and the "George and Dragon." He asked whether temporary stop lights could be erected on the A.642 Grangetown turn. He also asked about the motorway sign covering the diversion sign. These are matters for the highway authority, but I will see that what my hon. Friend has said is conveyed to the divisional road engineer and that he consults the surveyor of the West Riding County Council to see


whether there is any necessity to take action on these matters. The enforcement of speed limits is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) asked three pertinent questions. He asked whether I would say when the scheme could commence. I have already said that I am not able to anticipate any statement which my right hon. Friend may make. He asked whether I was aware that the A.637 was inadequate.
The fact that I have already twice indicated the potential of the scheme should make my view fairly clear. He asked me why this proposal had not yet been sanctioned. The only reason is that other schemes have had higher priority. I sincerely hope that the wishes of my hon. Friends are granted in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.